London bombings

Resolved,
	That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Official Account of the bombings in London on 7th July 2005.— [Mr. Watts.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Lisbon Agenda

Keith Vaz: What recent progress has been made towards reaching the Lisbon agenda benchmarks.

Gordon Brown: Britain is leading economic reform in Europe. We are calling for the opening up of competition in utilities, energy and services, with new legal powers of investigation and enforcement where there are restrictions to competition. Britain will continue to match reform with pay discipline in the public sector. The official figures published today show that production is up 0.8 per cent. on the last quarter, and yesterday's bank report shows that inflation is on target. British growth is strong, strengthening and will strengthen even more in the months to come.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Chancellor for that answer. On Monday the European Commission revised its economic growth estimates from 2.1 to 2.3 per cent. According to the Centre for European Reform, the United Kingdom is now top of all the big EU countries in terms of the Lisbon benchmarks. France is eighth, Germany 10th and Italy 23rd. What steps is the Chancellor proposing to take to encourage our European partners to follow Britain's excellent example in vigorously pursuing the Lisbon agenda?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was Minister for Europe when the Lisbon reform agenda was agreed. It is important to recognise that in the next few months we must make progress on energy liberalisation. The cost of the absence of liberalisation has been a €40 billion extra bill for consumers in Europe over the last year—£10 billion for British consumers. That is why it is important not only that there is a timetable, which has been agreed, and the investigation into what happened over gas prices, which Britain proposed and has been agreed, but that we have new powers of enforcement as well as investigation where there are restrictions to competition. We will continue to pursue this agenda of reform in Europe.
	My hon. Friend mentioned that the growth figures for Germany, France, Italy and other euro countries were forecast over the last few days by the European Commission. I remind the House that growth in Britain has been faster than almost all those other countries in each year since 1997 and continues to be faster this year, despite allegations made by the Opposition.

Michael Fallon: If the Lisbon agenda is about improving European competitiveness, why has this Chancellor increased the burden of tax and regulation on the British economy? He talks about a timetable. Is it not time that we had a firm timetable for an orderly transition to a new Chancellor who can reduce the burden, or must we wait for a Conservative one?

Gordon Brown: I thought that this morning the hon. Gentleman would quote the report of the Heritage Foundation of the United States of America, which says that we are a less regulated and more liberal economy than when his Government were in power in 1997. As for the Lisbon reform agenda, where the emphasis is on the creation of jobs as well as on competitiveness, let me say that unemployment has fallen by 55 per cent. in his constituency since we came to power.

John McFall: The Chancellor will know that the Lisbon target was for average economic growth of 3 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) indicated that we are far from that. Can the Chancellor spread the idea that if we do not respond together on the issue of globalisation, and particularly the rise of India and China, the future for Europe will be bleak? What policies does he have to ensure that that challenge to globalisation is met by the European Union?

Gordon Brown: It is because of the challenge of China, India and Asia, and because we appreciate that there is a shift taking place in both production and services around the world, that we believe that open markets and free trade should be combined with investment in science, technology and the creative industries for the future, and that we should aim to be the best educated, skilled and trained work force in the world. At the same time, we must aim to ensure that work pays for families in Britain as in the rest of Europe, which is why we have a child tax credit policy as well as a new deal for employment. Child tax credit has done more to take children out of poverty than any policy since the second world war.

Vincent Cable: I know that the Chancellor has had a lot on his mind, but has he had time to refresh his memory of the Lisbon agenda, which he inspired, particularly the passage in which he committed himself to take
	"concrete measures... to alleviate the tax pressure on labour and especially on the relatively unskilled and low-paid"?
	How does he reconcile that commitment with the striking conclusions of the Treasury Select Committee, which are summarised in a remarkable graphic, that while the Government have made welcome progress in cutting extreme marginal tax rates, the number of workers who now pay marginal tax withdrawal rates of 60 to 70 per cent. has doubled to almost 2 million under his stewardship?

Gordon Brown: When we came to power, because of the way the family credit system worked, people had marginal tax rates of above 100 per cent. Thousands of people had marginal tax rates of above 90 per cent. and 80 per cent. We have eliminated those marginal tax rates, and the hon. Gentleman should give us credit for that.  [ Interruption. ] We have eliminated marginal tax rates above 100 per cent. and 90 per cent., as I said. Has the hon. Gentleman also seen the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that for the average family with two children the effective tax rate for the average earner has fallen from 17 per cent. to 8 per cent. during the course of the Government? That shows that not only are we relieving child poverty but, by introducing tax credits and a 10p income tax rate and reducing the basic rate of income tax from 23p to 22p, we have been able to help the very people he is talking about. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to have a sensible economic policy, perhaps he will start looking at the changes that he needs to make in his own.

Jim Devine: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the shadow Chancellor has been visiting various cities in Europe, and that recently in Dublin he did an interview—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters that are not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that there has been growing electoral resistance to free market economics in Europe, and that it is going to continue. Is it not time that Europe had a look at its future economic direction and perhaps made some changes?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend should look at the pamphlet that the Treasury produced in the last few days on the need to respond to global economic change by combining open markets and free trade with investment in science, infrastructure and education. That is the way forward for advanced industrial economies to deal with the problems of the global economy.
	In the last year, in America, Japan and Europe, 1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. A quarter of a million service jobs have been offshored. As a result of the rise of China and India, 30 per cent. of the demand for oil now comes from China, and that is one of the reasons why the oil price is rising. We need to respond to Asian competition by combining open markets and free trade with sensible and prudent investment in education, infrastructure, transport and science. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party wants to cut the very investments that should be made.

George Osborne: Thanks to the Chancellor's policies, the United Kingdom has been growing more slowly than the world average, the OECD average and 18 other European Union member states. Disposable incomes growth is stalling and, according to the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), poverty has become more entrenched. Is his former Cabinet colleague right about that?

Gordon Brown: This is the very shadow Chancellor who congratulated me on Labour's success on macro-economic policy. Let me just tell him that disposable income is rising; he only needs to look at the Bank of England inflation report yesterday to see that that is happening. In terms of growth, if he looks at the comparisons that we should make between Germany, France and Italy—the euro area—it is absolutely true that British economic growth is rising this year faster than in those countries and rose last year faster than in those countries. Why does he criticise us for a high level of growth when the growth rate on average under the Conservatives was substantially less? The tragedy is that under the Conservatives we had less growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment, as well as greater poverty. How can his policies, which are the same as the policies of the past, begin to change those things?

George Osborne: I was asking the Chancellor about the views of the right hon. Member for Darlington, who I thought was a great friend of his, but he did not address that point. The right hon. Gentleman is not the only one who is critical of the Chancellor's performance. The World Economic Forum says that we are becoming less competitive. Peter Mandelson, another friend of the Chancellor's, says that the economic record is
	"not all it is cracked up to be".
	The right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), another friend of his, says that pension policies cannot continue, and the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), says that we are taxed to the limit.
	Now, I know that the Chancellor and his cabal are paranoid, but it does seem that people are out to get him. When will he start reversing Britain's long-term competitive decline and do his day job instead of scheming against the Prime Minister to get his next job?

Gordon Brown: Growth is higher. Employment is 125,000 higher than last year. We are meeting our inflation target. Interest rates are half what they were. I do not think that the shadow Chancellor should be dining out on the idea that the British economy is falling apart under Labour. We have a more stable economy, higher investment and higher employment. If the shadow Chancellor does not believe that, why was he telling people only a few months ago that Labour had been successful at establishing economic credibility and had improved the macro-economic management of the economy, and that too often the Conservatives had sacrificed long-term economic credibility for short-term gestures? He should look again at his own statements.

Home Computing Initiative

Philip Davies: What representations he has received on the abolition of the home computing initiative.

Dawn Primarolo: There have been a number of representations since the Government removed the exemption from benefit-in-kind tax charges and national insurance contributions for employer-provided computer equipment loaned to employees.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply, but it is clear that the Government have got in a hopeless muddle over this. The new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
	"It is vital the workforce develops the skills that will keep us competitive. That process should begin in the home so that everyone has the opportunity to become comfortable and confident with computers. That is why the Government is offering tax breaks which reduce the cost of computers to employees while saving money for their employers."
	Why does the Minister disagree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long.

Dawn Primarolo: The tax exemption was removed because it was poorly targeted and did not achieve the goal of encouraging people to develop skills. The Low Pay Commission reported that people on low pay or out of work could not get access to the scheme. Also, the scheme was being misused: people provided with the exemption used it to buy computer, home video and other equipment, but that was not what it was designed for. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the Government should spend money on poorly targeted and abused schemes instead of targeting such initiatives on those who need them most, he must tell us why.

Jim Sheridan: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has just said about people abusing the scheme, good and honest people like Mr. McDonald in my constituency are using it properly. His company, Mouse in the House, helps and educates low-skilled workers to learn computers. Is there no alternative to just scrapping the scheme?

Dawn Primarolo: No, there is no alternative. Unfortunately, the creativity of those seeking to provide equipment in a way not originally intended by the provision was growing all the time and needed to be stopped. My hon. Friend makes an important point about how the scheme assisted his constituents, and that is precisely why the Government are refocusing on their digital strategy. I am the Minister in charge of this matter, and he is very welcome to submit his views and those of his constituents to me. They will be taken into consideration in the review.

Mark Francois: If the scheme was so poorly targeted, why were the Government about to roll it out to employees in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions on the very day the Treasury scrapped it? The CBI and the TUC have endorsed the scheme, which has helped 500,000 people and their families to improve their computer skills. When the Chancellor announced the original concession, he told the  Daily Record:
	"Britain can no longer afford to lag behind America. Inequality in computer learning today will mean inequality in earning power tomorrow."
	Even at this eleventh hour, will the Government recognise that this is a poor decision, taken by an analogue Chancellor who is stuck in the past and reversing?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman answers his own question, as the US does not have similar schemes. He is right to address the question of how we give people in the greatest need access to computer technology, but the Low Pay Commission's 2005 report showed that that was not happening under the scheme. Why should the Government spend £200 million on a poorly targeted scheme? It was being abused and was not delivering, so the Government have refocused to ensure that the objective is achieved.

Inflation Target

Sharon Hodgson: What recent representations he has received on the inflation target; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: The Bank of England inflation report set out yesterday states that we expect to meet our inflation target this year, next year and in subsequent years, as we have done each and every year since we came to power. To lock in public sector pay discipline and to maintain the momentum of a strengthening economy, we are today writing to all Departments to make it clear that public sector pay settlements must, in future, also be founded on meeting the 2 per cent. inflation target.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Chancellor for his reply. As he is well aware, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 50 per cent. since 1997. What assessment has he made of the UK's combination of unemployment and inflation since 1997?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Not only in her constituency, but in those of all Opposition Members, unemployment has fallen substantially since 1997. That includes long-term unemployment and it is important to note that long-term youth unemployment, about which many people were so concerned, has been virtually eliminated. By having a stable macro-economic framework, we have managed to combine low inflation with high employment. We intend to continue with that, but it is possible only if we adopt active labour market measures such as the new deal for skills and jobs. It is a tragedy that both Opposition parties want to abolish it.

Peter Tapsell: As the Chancellor is predicting low inflation, why is it the case that, since he sold more than half our gold reserves—a course that I strongly argued against at the time—the price of gold has far more than doubled? Yesterday, the sterling price of gold reached an all-time historic high, so his act in selling that gold has cost British taxpayers more than £3 billion—enough to repair all the crumbling churches in this country and to provide dozens of new academies.

Gordon Brown: I hate to supply the hon. Gentleman with this information, but when we sold the gold, we bought euros, which are rising in value. That must be uncomfortable information for him. If I had taken his advice, I would not have made the Bank of England independent, which would have been a terrible mistake, so I shall think twice before taking his advice on anything.

Brian H Donohoe: How has it been possible to maintain such low inflation, which has been very helpful to local industries in my constituency, while energy prices, particularly oil, have soared? What is the Chancellor going to do about that?

Gordon Brown: It is sad that, as a result of the doubling of oil prices, we have seen domestic gas and electricity prices and the cost of energy for industry rising. In other decades in which oil prices doubled—in fact, over a period of years, it has trebled—the British economy would have been forced into recession as a result of excessively high inflation. Most people realise that when America, the euro area, Japan and even China are putting up interest rates, Britain has by comparison managed to keep both low inflation and higher growth in the economy. That is the result of the macro-economic framework that has enabled us to deal with difficulties, one of the greatest of which is high energy prices, as they arise. We will continue to pursue a policy of low inflation and higher growth.

Stewart Hosie: Inflation is forecast to remain relatively low for the new few years, but construction inflation is forecast to rise by 5 per cent.—double the overall rate—by 2008. It is driven mainly by pressure to complete developments for the Olympic games. What measures will the Treasury put in place to monitor construction inflation to ensure that it does not spiral out of control, dragging the overall inflation rate with it?

Gordon Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the construction industry is increasing in strength as a result of major public and private investments in all areas of the country. Of course, where there are skills shortages, there are pressures on inflation in the industry. That is why we have a training and skills policy. We will continue to invest in training and skills and in apprenticeships for construction and other workers. I hope that the parties that oppose the new deal will now support it so that we can get on with that job.

World Growth

Stephen Pound: If he will make a statement on the discussion on world growth at the G7 meeting in Washington.

Gordon Brown: Britain's growth, which is strengthening, is contributing to higher world economy growth. To maintain it, we need each continent to make the reforms they agreed at the April meeting of the International Monetary Fund, which should be backed up by action to address protectionism in trade.

Stephen Pound: My right hon. Friend has many friends in Northolt—on the basis of last Thursday's elections probably rather more than me. The pupils of Downe Manor primary school, which was opened by my right hon. Friend, have a keen interest in the education for all initiative. What news can the Chancellor give me of progress in that vital area, which the pupils of Downe Manor feel will actually lead to a better world?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I visited the school in his constituency—

George Osborne: That is why we won the council.

Gordon Brown: When I visited the school before the last general election, I was pleased to meet the pupils and the teachers.
	The education for all initiative will mean that 100 million potential school pupils who do not have an education at present will get that chance. That was discussed at the G7 meeting in Washington and we want every country to support the British initiative for education. That means not only additional public funds, for which I hope there will be all-party support, for education in the poorest countries, but also schools such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency linking up with schools in Africa and other developing countries and making teacher exchanges possible so that we understand each other's problems. I hope that the new initiative being taken by the Comic Relief organisation to contact every school to ask it to consider linking up with and adopting a school in a developing country will be supported by every Member of Parliament.

Jeremy Hunt: On world growth, if the Chancellor looks around the world, does he not accept that the most successful countries have low tax and light regulation? Given that he has been taking this country in the opposite direction, should not the Government, rather than preaching to other countries, explain why there is such a difference between the Prime Minister's rhetoric and the Chancellor's reality?

Gordon Brown: I can only quote back to the hon. Gentleman the comment of the chairman of the Conservative party's economic policy commission, who seems to have disappeared from the Tory Benches at Treasury questions. He said:
	"Places like...the UK... attract"—
	investment—
	" because their tax rates for business are low."
	Not my words, but those of the chairman of the Conservative party economic policy commission, praising us for our competitive tax rates.

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Madeleine Moon: What assessment he has made of the effect of the planned closure of three research sites of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on the implementation of the recommendations of the Lyons review on public sector location.

Stephen Timms: The Natural Environment Research Council has reviewed its strategy in light of scientific priorities and financial sustainability. Following public consultation and given the centre's reducing external income, the council has announced a restructuring. That does not affect the Lyons programme, which is on track to relocate 20,000 civil service posts from London and the south-east by 2010.

Madeleine Moon: The closure of the three sites of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology by the NERC makes no economic sense. The transitional costs of £45 million over four years will save only £2 million a year. Will the Minister agree to take a close interest in that decision, which will have a critical impact on the science base we need to look into climate change, biodiversity and environmental pollution?

Stephen Timms: The centre will continue to have an important role in the areas to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. The reorganisation will release about £5 million a year for the priorities of the NERC, including work on the impact of aerosols on climate change and the possible shutdown of the north Atlantic current. In this case, there was quite rigorous peer review and wide consultation before the decision was made. It is right for the independent council—the NERC—to decide how best to use its resources.

Theresa Villiers: I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
	I want to press the Chief Secretary on this issue. Only a few weeks ago in New York, the Chancellor addressed UN ambassadors on his ideas for
	"how we protect our environment, secure our planet and safeguard our future for our children and generations to come".
	His sudden new interest in the environment is enormously welcome on the Conservative Benches, but if he is really committed to tackling climate change I appeal to him and to the Chief Secretary to reconsider the decision to close world-class eco-research facilities doing vitally important work. If he will not listen to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), he should listen to the schools Minister, who said that the closure does not make sense—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words of welcome, but I can reassure her that the centre will continue to focus on climate change and biodiversity and will have additional resources to invest in science, as a result of the restructuring that has been announced. It is for the independent council of the NERC to decide how best to use the budget at its disposal. Of course there has been a very big increase in the science budget under this Government, including for work on climate change, and that commitment will be maintained and the improvements will continue.

Rob Marris: I am reassured that my hon. Friend says that the centre will continue to focus on climate change. What concerns me, as he may be aware, is that although the Government have an admirable record on measures in this country and in taking leadership around the world to cut emissions, we are not doing nearly enough to address the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and so on. Can he assure me that that centre and other centres will continue to do valuable work in that regard, because climate change is coming whether we like it or not, and however much we cut our emissions, as we should do?

Stephen Timms: We certainly will continue to do very valuable work in those areas. The decision was preceded by very widespread international peer review of the science, as well as widespread consultation, and the decision of the independent council was that the reorganisation was the best way to ensure that the investment being made in those areas has the maximum impact.

Tax Credits

David Evennett: What measures he is taking to reduce overpayments of tax credits.

Jeremy Wright: What steps he is taking to reduce overpayments of tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: Overpayments are a consequence of a responsive system, under an annual system. Given that a family's final entitlement cannot be known until the end of the year, some end-year adjustment will be necessary. Such adjustments could be avoided only by moving to an entirely fixed system. The 2005 pre-Budget report announced a series of measures to improve tax credits that would reduce overpayments by about a third once they are fully in effect. Overpayments amounted to £2.2 billion in 2003-04. The Public Accounts Committee announced on 25 April that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs estimates that the figure will be similar in 2004-05, and national statistics on tax credit overpayments for 2004-05 will be published on 31 May.

David Evennett: I thank the Paymaster General for her reply. The Chancellor said that tax credits are both symbol and substance of the Government's ambition for Britain. Is it not therefore appalling that the administration of tax credits has been so shambolic and that the recovery of overpayments has forced many people below the bread line and into mounting debt?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong on that, and he needs to ask the thousands of families in his constituency who are benefiting from tax credits. Some 700,000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 1998-99. Four in 10 families now pay no net tax, as a result of tax credits. Families are helped with child care. Families are supported in building on their affluence by changing jobs and increasing their hours. Tax credits are a fundamental part of supporting families in a flexible way, and if the hon. Gentleman is proposing to take them away from his constituents, he will hear a very different story from them.

Jeremy Wright: The Paymaster General will be aware that a substantial number of the overpayments are due to official error. In those cases, claimants are expected to identify and challenge the error if they want to avoid repaying the money. She will also accept that there are many cases where the claimant receives a large number of award notices, all of them different, and that task can be extremely difficult. Why should tax credit recipients, who have done nothing wrong, spend so much time correcting the Government's mistakes?

Dawn Primarolo: It is indicative, if I can remind the hon. Gentleman, that about 10,500 families in his constituency receive tax credits and that the vast majority of them are receiving their tax credits at the right time and correctly. He will know—I have already said this in an answer to him, but I am happy to send the details—that the question of error and whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to notice the error is a matter for the procedures used by HMRC, which are well publicised and were repeated in the PBR in 2005.
	.

Kerry McCarthy: When the Minister gave evidence to the Treasury Committee in February, she suggested that she might be thinking of placing HMRC staff in citizens advice bureaux to run specialist advice surgeries on tax credits. Will she update us as to where we are with those proposals? At the risk of exposing her to a conflict of interest, may I suggest that Bristol would be an ideal place for a pilot?

Dawn Primarolo: I could not possibly comment on whether Bristol would be a sensible place for a pilot. Areas of work between the department and the citizens advice bureau are continuing to develop. Tax credit staff can be in citizens advice bureaux, citizens advice bureaux can have access to hotlines and special advice for their staff, and can be located in the department's inquiry centres to assist constituents who require that more detailed assistance from the citizens advice bureau.

Sally Keeble: From what I have seen, the Inland Revenue staff have worked extremely well to take up and deal with complaints and problems relating to the tax credit system and I welcome the changes that were announced. In the case of the child care tax credit, will the Paymaster General say whether she would be prepared to look at an amnesty or some changes in relation to overpayments? The benefits are important and generous and have helped women. However, because the system is generous, if there are overpayments, they tend to be quite high.

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, the same regulations and procedure with regard to overpayments apply if there has been an overpayment of the child care element. Yes, of course, I am open to suggestions about how to improve the process—bearing in mind the need to maintain flexibility, provide certainty and make sure that the tax credits respond to the changing needs of families and the income in those families. If she has suggestions that she would like to put to me, I would be happy to consider them.

David Laws: Does the Paymaster General remember telling the House a year ago that the problems with the tax credit system affected only a small proportion of families? Does she agree that that was utter nonsense? Why is there still administrative chaos in the tax credit system?

Dawn Primarolo: Six million families are claiming tax credits and some 10 million children in those families are benefiting. We are paying out something like £15 billion-worth of support to them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish that system, what does he propose to put in its place? Finally, I wish that he would stop running down the staff of HMRC and tax credits by saying that the system is in chaos when it certainly is not.

Clive Efford: The tax credits have been a major success of this Government and have assisted in lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. However, we would be remiss if we were not concerned about parents who receive overpayments and suffer some hardship in making repayments. Judging by my casework, it seems that they come up against bureaucracy. Is there any way in which we can allocate specific caseworkers to families to assist them in taking their case through to a swift conclusion? Some of the problems are caused by the length of time that people are forced to wait for the payments to be sorted out.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will know that I have announced a number of changes—both last May and in the pre-Budget report in 2005—to improve the system. Those improvements are progressing. If he has further suggestions, I will certainly consider them, but I remind Members that tax credits have been the most successful element of raising children out of poverty, supporting families and helping them to move into work. A flexible system gives the best result and that is what we need to preserve.

Paul Goodman: Talking of running down the tax credit system, the Paymaster General may have read a recent report by the Fabian Society that said that tax credits were associated with "complexity and administrative problems", that they posed "risks" for low-income families and that they were "perceived negatively" by many families. The report was welcomed as "very important" by a very important person: the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom we welcome to his post. Indeed, we read that he actually helped to launch the report. Is it not significant that criticisms of the system made by Conservative Members and echoed by others are now shared by the second most important member of the Treasury team?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the views of the Fabians—I cannot think why he might want to do that. He knows full well that the report first contained statements of support for tax credits and noted the contribution that they have made, especially to lifting children out of poverty. Secondly, the society raised various questions about whether or not tax credits and child benefit should be combined. That argument is a matter for the society, but it certainly did not run down tax credits or say that they should be abolished.

National Minimum Wage

Diana Johnson: What assessment he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on levels of employment since its introduction.

Edward Balls: May I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) for his good wishes and kind words? I very much look forward to our future debates in the House.
	I can confirm that the adult minimum wage will rise this October from £5.05 an hour to £5.35. The Low Pay Commission monitors its impact on employment levels, and employment has risen, since its introduction in 1999, by just over 1.7 million jobs.

Diana Johnson: First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position? The minimum wage in my constituency has helped some of the lowest paid, especially women, and employment has risen by more than 72 per cent. since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition's forecast that the minimum wage would send unemployment straight back up turned out to be a complete Eton mess?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be careful. It is not the Minister's responsibility to worry about the Leader of the Opposition—it is mine.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend, who has a fine record of campaigning for both a national minimum wage and a return to full employment, is absolutely right. The experience that she describes in her constituency is reflected in constituencies throughout the country. Thousands of families are benefiting, and 1.3 million families are better off. Two thirds of the people who are benefiting are women, and that is alongside record levels of employment. Some said that the minimum wage would cost jobs, but we have proved them wrong.

Greg Clark: Am I alone in finding that answer remarkably complacent? We have 7 million people in this country whose jobs are not productive enough to generate even a living wage, so they rely on the state for a top-up. Is that a sustainable basis for our economic competitiveness?

Edward Balls: That is exactly why we introduced the new deal to get people back to work and new investment to improve skills. We combined that with measures to boost people's incomes and introduced the minimum wage and tax credits to make work pay. Abolishing the minimum wage and tax credits would take Britain backwards, not forwards.

Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge the role of the minimum wage in dealing with poverty, especially when it is combined with tax credits? That has certainly had a big effect in my constituency. Will he do a quick analysis of the implications of questions asked by Opposition Members? What would happen if the minimum wage was abolished?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a combination of the minimum wage and tax credits has been responsible for the substantial boosts to income that we have seen. Let me give some examples. A family with one child has seen its weekly income go from £182 a week to £268 a week, which is a 23 per cent. rise. A family with two children on half average earnings is better off by £3,500 a year as a result of that combination. If we were to go backwards by abolishing the minimum wage or tax credits, we would have both rising poverty and poverty pay in the workplace, which would be the wrong thing for our country.

John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Economic Secretary on his appointment and, in the national interest, wish him every success. Given that a few rogue employers still refuse to pay the national minimum wage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a right to interest on late payments of the minimum wage, for which I first called on the Floor of the House in March 1998, would be right in itself, would not damage employment and could be a useful feature of a progressive consensus?

Edward Balls: Despite that proposal, I understand that when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill he opposed the minimum wage at every stage. The Low Pay Commission is responsible for monitoring the minimum wage, its impact and all the details, and I am sure that it has looked at that suggestion. As for employers who are trying to make payments below the minimum wage, that is exactly the wrong thing to do. I saw in this morning's newspapers the comments by Mr. Worrall Thompson, who said that it would be a good idea to abolish the minimum wage for restaurant workers in London. He presents "Saturday Kitchen" very well, but he should stick to cooking, as our country would take the wrong direction if restaurant workers were denied the minimum wage and fairness at work.

Kevan Jones: Since the introduction of the minimum wage, 111,000 individuals in the north-east have benefited, including many women and part-time workers. In addition, unemployment in my constituency is down by 50 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that those sanguine voices who said that the minimum wage would create unemployment should apologise?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his constituency, as in all constituencies, the minimum wage has had a substantial impact. We set up the Low Pay Commission not just to advise on the level of the minimum wage but to build consensus between employers and trade unionists on the importance of the measure. I believe that we have built that consensus throughout the country, and it is a pity that it does not extend to the two Opposition parties.

Biofuels

Iain Wright: If he will make a statement on his plans to promote biofuels.

John Healey: We are committed to support biofuels as part of long-term measures to reduce carbon emissions in transport. In the Budget, we announced the extension of the 20p per litre duty discount on biofuels until 2008-09, and we made a range of announcements on a renewable transport fuel obligation, which means that by 2010, 5 per cent. of all fuel sold for roads in the UK will come from renewable sources.

Iain Wright: In the Tees valley, companies such as Petroplus, SembCorp and the Biofuels Corporation, as well as public sector organisations such as One NorthEast, Renew Tees Valley and NEPIC—the north east process industries cluster—are all working together to help to develop a modern, environmentally friendly industry. My sub-region has a fantastic opportunity to become not only a national but a global centre of excellence. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that that vision is realised?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. The biofuels plant that he mentioned in Teesside will be up and running later this year. It will be one of the biggest in Europe, and it is supported by One NorthEast. The joint effort in his region to support the biofuels industry and market in Britain is second to none. The chief executive officer of the Biofuels Corporation strongly welcomed the Budget package which, he said,
	"covered all the points required."
	He said that it worked for biodiesel, and would kick-start the investment necessary. He has contributed a great deal to consultations and discussions on the package of measures needed for the future, and he thought that it would help the Biofuels Corporation to get a second plant up and running in the next three years.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that East Anglia faces its greatest farming crisis since the 1920s? The one bright light at the end of the tunnel is biofuels. Teesside notwithstanding, does he share my concern that as new refining capacity has come on stream at a snail's pace, we need a wider fuel duty differential?

John Healey: The biofuels market has increased sixfold since 2003, and a number of biodiesel and bioethanol plants have been built or planned, including the Wessex grain plant near the hon. Gentleman's constituency that will probably be the first bioethanol plant in this country. I should expect him to welcome what we put in place in the Budget, because it will give greater certainty to the industry, which has welcomed it because it wants to invest for the future. I should like the consensus on environmental policy for which the leader of his party has called to fall behind the measures that the Government have taken.

Lynne Jones: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what he is doing to ensure that in future biofuels used in the UK are sourced through second-generation technologies, such as cellulose bioethanol, which uses the non-food part of the crops, or Fischer-Tropsch biodiesel, which uses woody waste, rather than from sources that give suboptimal carbon savings and compete with food production?

John Healey: I can, indeed. First, we have said that we will back pilots to look at whether we can use the duty discount differential in order to reward the feedstock for the sort of plant that my hon. Friend wishes to see. Secondly, we have submitted an application to the European Commission for state aid clearance to introduce an enhanced capital allowance for good quality biofuels. Thirdly, the Department for Transport will be leading work in the preparation for the new obligation that will allow us to put in place a carbon and sustainability assurance scheme, to make sure that future UK biofuels will come from good sources and contribute to the challenge of climate change, as we intend them to.

Nicholas Winterton: Could the Minister advise the House how much joined-up government there is in respect of the development and production of biofuels? Not only is the Treasury involved, but clearly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved. Such development is extremely important. How much joined-up government is there, to ensure the maximum progress?

John Healey: A great deal of joined-up work has gone on. The hon. Gentleman missed out a fourth important Department, the Department for Transport. With regard to the obligation, its terms will lead the design of the new measure and determine the draft legislation and regulations that will be required to put it into place. It represents some of the important policy work which I explained to the House a moment ago, to make sure that we have in place the carbon assurance schemes that will mean that we get the maximum environmental benefit from the measure in the future.

Millennium Development Goals

Chris McCafferty: What assessment he has made of the contribution of the international finance facility to meeting the millennium development goals on sexual and reproductive health; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: Following the international finance facility on vaccination, which will front-load $4 billion of extra funds for immunisation and could save 5 million lives, we are examining facilities that will offer front-loaded long-term predictable finance across all areas of health and education, to ensure that finance is sustainable and predictable for those services.

Chris McCafferty: Given that the UN Secretary-General has said that the millennium development goals, particularly the eradication of poverty, cannot be achieved unless questions of population and reproductive health are squarely addressed, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that in discussions on financing for development, he will ensure that reproductive health and the empowerment of women stay at the top of the agenda?

Gordon Brown: I know that in the report that the United Nations is producing this year, it is looking again at its objectives in this area so that we can achieve the millennium development goals, as my hon. Friend rightly says. I thank her for raising the issue with Ministers not only in the Treasury, but at the Department for International Development. We are spending £240 million a year on supporting maternal health and reproductive health services, and we will continue to see whether, through innovative forms of financing, we could do more to build up health care capacity, as well as the supply of treatments and drugs.

Michael Fabricant: To what extent is the Treasury working with the Department for International Development to ensure that there is co-ordination concerning the sorts of product available for reproductive health? Sometimes vaccines are available, but not syringes or needles. To what extent is the Chancellor able to ensure that both requirements are available?

Gordon Brown: We are working together on that. The hon. Gentleman will know that new developments in advanced market mechanisms mean that we can underpin the research and development of new drugs and treatments, and then have drugs in mass production at affordable prices, whereas at present treatments and drugs are in low production at very high prices. It is our intention at the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers in St. Petersburg to consider whether we could do more so that drugs, treatments and services that are now in short supply but very expensive could be widely available and the cost of them could come down. I will take on board everything the hon. Gentleman says.

Gershon Review

Angela Watkinson: What efficiency savings have been made as a result of the implementation of the Gershon review of public sector efficiency.

Stephen Timms: Our progress has been excellent, and we are on track for our target of more than £20 billion-worth of efficiency gains by 2008. By December last year, we had already secured £6.4 billion-worth, as well as gross work force reductions of more than 40,000, including more than 7,000 reallocations to the front line. Forthcoming departmental reports will provide a progress update.

Angela Watkinson: The National Audit Office has stated that the biggest risk with Gershon efficiency savings is that they will be accompanied by an unintended fall in the quality of public service production. Given the parlous state of the health service, which the Chancellor was too embarrassed to mention in his Budget, is not that exactly what is happening now?

Stephen Timms: No, it certainly is not. Indeed, the NAO report to which the hon. Lady refers makes the point that one of the respects in which this programme is significantly better than what has been tried by previous Governments is that Departments have to show that
	"reforms have at least maintained quality."
	That is built into the process. The example that I know best is that of the Pension Service, which reduced its work force by 30 per cent. over a two-year period and at the same time improved its customer approval ratings. It did that by very effective implementation of IT and by investing in its staff. That is the kind of transformation that we are determined to bring about right across the public services. I hope that the whole House would welcome that.

David Taylor: Has my hon. Friend seen yesterday's report by the Audit Commission in respect of local authorities, which points out that even in the most deprived areas, high rates of collection of council tax and housing rents by direct debit are possible? That would free up tens of millions of pounds for redeployment to front-line services. I hope that if implemented, it would not lead to local authority staff redundancies.

Stephen Timms: I have not seen that report, but I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the benefits of maximising collection. The key reason for the success of our efficiency programme has been the new stability in the public finances that the Government have achieved. That meant that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able in the Budget to tell the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office how much they will have to spend in five years' time. That is a remarkable change from what used to happen in the past. The more that local authorities are able to be confident about the resources that they will have in future, the better able they will be to plan, to be more efficient, and to continue to make the gains that we have seen. That was never possible before, given the instability created by the policies of the previous Government. It is vital that we lock that stability in as the economy gains momentum.

Pension Credit

Graham Stuart: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the long-term financial sustainability of pension credit.

Stephen Timms: Until last week, I was having extremely regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on all aspects of pensions policy. Discussions are continuing as we prepare for the forthcoming White Paper. Pension credit has had a dramatic impact on reducing pensioner poverty.

Graham Stuart: On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether means-testing for pensioners should be increased, decreased or remain about the same. He told me that
	"we have to control the spread of means-testing in the pensions system."—[ Official Report, 8 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 8.]
	Do the Minister and the Chancellor agree with that assessment?

Stephen Timms: Of course. Indeed, we have had means-testing of pensioner incomes in the UK since 1908. The Turner report rightly points out that a large and unpredictable future expansion of means-testing would be a problem, but the commission was right to support pension credit because of its success in reducing pensioner poverty. In 1997, 27 per cent. of pensioners were below the poverty line. Since then, the poverty line has been uprated in line with earnings, but the number below it has fallen to 17 per cent. That is a reduction of 1 million in the number of pensioners below the poverty line. Half of that reduction followed the introduction of pension credit in 2003. I understand that nowadays the hon. Gentleman's party supports reductions in pensioner poverty. I hope that it will support—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Jenkins.

Brian Jenkins: In his talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will my hon. Friend offer any help and support that he can to that Department to undertake research into why pensioners do not take up the opportunity available to them? Is some psychological barrier preventing people from believing that there is money available for free? How do we overcome that problem?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department for Work and Pensions has done a good deal of work on that and we, too, have been in discussions about it. Approximately 2.7 million households receive pension credit. That number has increased substantially since the introduction of pension credit in 2003 and the Pension Service is taking effective steps to increase take-up further. However, my hon. Friend is right—we need to research more and ensure that the number increases even more.
	I stress that the evidence clearly shows that those who stand to benefit most from pension credit are taking it up to a much greater extent. That is why it has had such an impact on reducing pensioner poverty.

Personal Statement

Elfyn Llwyd: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
	On 4 May, during business questions, you asked me whether I had given the Secretary of State for Wales notice of my intention to name him. I said that contact had been made at five minutes to 11. My personal assistant, in my presence and hearing, telephoned the Secretary of State's office at that time and was told that he was away on a private, family matter. The member of staff at the Wales Office offered to put me through to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I did not take up that offer. I recognise that I did not make that clear, and that by not doing so, I inadvertently misled you and the House, for which I sincerely apologise.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his apology to me and to the House. It is clear that he did not succeed in alerting the Secretary of State for Wales to the fact that he intended to refer to him in business questions last week. That is a courtesy that every Member should observe when intending to make a serious allegation against another Member. I expect all Members to observe that convention scrupulously in future. Having said that, I do not intend to allow any debate or points of order about the hon. Member's apology, and still less about the substance of his allegation last week. That is a matter to be pursued elsewhere, if at all.

Business of the House

Theresa May: I see that the Leader of the House is eager to give us the business for the next two weeks, which I ask him to do.

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 15 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
	Tuesday 16 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
	Wednesday 17 May—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	Thursday 18 May—Motion relating to Members and Chairmen's pay, followed by a motion relating to the Association of Former Members.
	Friday 19 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 22 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
	Tuesday 23 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Wednesday 24 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Thursday 25 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	The House will rise at the close of business on Thursday 25 May and return on Monday 5 June.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the 25 May and 8 June will be:
	Thursday 25 May—A debate on west coast route modernisation.
	Thursday 8 June—A debate on economic partnership agreement.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and I am sure that this will be the start of a fruitful relationship— [ Interruption.] But there are certain matters that I should make clear to him from the outset. I do not get up at 4.30 am to go to the gym, I cannot play the piano and I have absolutely no intention of standing for the presidency of the United States. None the less, may we have a debate in Government time on Iran? Given the different views within the Government on what action should be taken, such a debate would allow the Foreign Secretary to clarify whether she has changed the Government's position.
	According to a recent report, half of all the children born to parents with learning difficulties are taken into care. This raises concern about the authorities' attitude to those parents. Furthermore, the state's failure to care properly for looked-after children raises concerns about their future. This country's record on looked-after children is a scandal. May we have a debate on the matter?
	May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on advice to primary care trusts about the use of Herceptin for early-stage breast cancer? It was clear from Tuesday's debate that there are still widespread differences in the approaches of different PCTs across the country.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on her new housing development policy, and particularly on why my constituents and those of other hon. Members will not be allowed to object to overdevelopment, whereas her constituents will be? We could then ask her what the Government have learned from the recent council elections, which of course saw Labour lose 319 councillors—[Hon. Members: "How many?"] That was 319, for those who did not hear me. And the Conservatives gained 316 new councillors—

John Bercow: Say that again!

Theresa May: The Conservative party gained 316 new councillors. Of course, we should not forget the Liberal Democrats, who gained two.
	May we have a debate on the future of the Rural Payments Agency? The Minister responsible was sacked in the reshuffle, and the chief executive was sacked less than three months ago. His replacement is now leaving, and the new chief executive will be an interim appointment. Yet, amid all that chaos, farmers are expected to apply for their 2006 payments by next Monday, despite the fact that many of them are not sure of their entitlements. A debate on the matter is needed.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to go on a course on personnel management to ensure that he does not make such a botch of his next reshuffle? The Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was told that he was going to be Foreign Secretary for Europe and in the Cabinet, then he was in the Cabinet without a vote, and then he was told he was out of the Cabinet with a pay cut. The hospitals Minister resigned but the Prime Minister did not know about it. The Prime Minister appointed a new farms Minister but she did not know about it. She refused the job and someone else had to be called back from another job and made farms Minister. Does not this prove that the Government are in complete and utter chaos?
	Finally, may we have a debate on equality policy so that the appropriate Minister can clarify whether there has been a change in Government policy, and so that we can remind the Prime Minster that the Equal Pay Act 1970 requires equal pay for equal work? We could then discuss how it is that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is also the Minister for Women and Equality, and who has an entire Department to run, a budget of billions of pounds and hundreds of staff, is paid the same as the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who gets a grand title but no Department, few staff, and no responsibilities—and, by the way, two Jags and two homes to go with it. Better still, may we just have a statement from the Prime Minister explaining what on earth is the point of the Deputy Prime Minster?

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Lady for welcoming me to this position. I, too, look forward to developing not only a fruitful relationship with her but a close and meaningful one. I know that she does not get up at 4.30 in the morning, but I could still invite her to Blackburn and show her its delights. Perhaps I could also arrange piano lessons for her.
	I shall pursue the right hon. Lady's suggestion of a debate in Government time on Iran. I proposed to my predecessor as Leader of the House that a debate on middle east issues, including Iraq, Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict, would be a good idea, and my request received a sympathetic hearing.

John Bercow: And the answer was no.

Jack Straw: The answer was not no; it was maybe—and it still is. The issue is the straightforward one of trying to find space for such debates, on the assumption that Members on both sides of the House wish to adjourn for the summer recess on 25 July. I am happy to stay on, but I will do my best, and I recognise the importance of the issue. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, each of us must choose our own language when dealing with questions, but in practice there is absolutely no difference between her approach, the Prime Minister's and mine to the issue of Iran.
	On the issue of children with learning difficulties, I do not accept that the state's position has been a failure. However, dealing with looked-after children has always been very difficult, for Governments of both parties. We can always do better, but parenting difficulties are the reason why the children must be looked after in the first place, as all of us know from our constituency experience.
	I shall follow up the right hon. Lady's request that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on advice to PCTs about Herceptin. It might be a written ministerial statement, but I accept that an issue was raised on Wednesday, and I listened to the debate.
	The right hon. Lady's point about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is ridiculous, if she will allow me to say that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend has been that she has represented her constituents— [Interruption.] No, with great respect, everybody knows that any Secretary of State who has a power in relation to local authorities opts out entirely of any decisions relating to their own constituency. There cannot be a single Member on either side of the House who is not assiduous in representing constituents and following up representations made about planning applications. The Government and local authorities must balance those representations in the round. I have made plenty of representations against development on behalf of my constituents. The local authority, which happens to be controlled by my party, often says, "Thank you very much for those representations, but we can't accept them." We all acknowledge that. The criticism of my right hon. Friend is that she is simply doing her job, so it is one that I wholly resist.
	As for the recent council elections, I shall just say two things—

Julian Lewis: You lost—that is one of them!

Jack Straw: Yes, that is one of them. In each of the May local elections in the 1980s and 1990s, we did rather better than the Conservative party. We used to chalk up hundreds of gains. In the mid-1980s, I was the local government spokesperson for my party in opposition. If success in local elections had led automatically to an election of a Labour Government, we would have had one in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992.
	The right hon. Lady did not mention the local election results in Blackburn, where it is true that the Labour party had a net loss of two, which may be understandable, but it is also true that the Conservative party had a net loss of two. The Conservative party shrunk from 17 seats to 15.
	I do not think that a statement on the Rural Payments Agency is necessary, although I understand all the difficulties that have been faced in respect of the RPA. I have carefully considered the figures today, and Ministers in the other place have been making announcements. I understand that 85 per cent. of the value of the payments due for 2005 have now been made to 50 per cent. of the farmers concerned. The payments outstanding for 2005 are very small—some thousands. They ought to be made, however, and they will be made as quickly as possible. We have apologised for the mistakes that have occurred. As for the future, I shall certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I think that the position is now improving.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady raised a serious point about equality. I defer to no one, least of all members of the Conservative party, on the subject of our record on equality. I was in the House when a Conservative Government, to cheers from the Conservative party, forced through section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and failed to do anything about equality for those who had a different sexual preference. They also did very little about equality for those whose skins were a different colour. In 18 years of Conservative government, there was no legislation whatever in respect of racial or religious equality. We will take no lectures on equality from the right hon. Lady or her party.

Fraser Kemp: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1705?
	 [That this House notes that the Square Route Group, a group of women on Wearside, have transformed their community in New Herrington by the creation of a doorstep green in the centre of their community; further notes that they have just completed the funding of road markings and new art features including four trees fired in metal, to be officially launched in May; and congratulates them for the achievement of true people power and for raising more than half a million pounds to reach their outstanding goal.]
	The motion, which is in my name and those of 17 other Members, pays tribute to an inspirational group of women in my constituency who, after five years of hard work in a former mining area, have raised more than £500,000—as a result of help from a Labour-controlled council and a Labour Government—to transform the environment of their former mining community beyond all recognition. The official opening takes place next week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to an area that was neglected for so long under the Tories? It is a great deal better now, and the people there are enjoying the benefits of a Labour Government.

Jack Straw: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating that group of women on the transformation of not just the environment, but one of the communities that were decimated by the closure of the pits under the Conservatives.

David Heath: I note that I have not been invited to Blackburn yet.
	May we have a debate on progress towards an international arms trade treaty? Perhaps the new Foreign Secretary will tell us whether she intends to go to the United Nations small arms review conference in New York next month. The arms trade is an extremely important issue on which this country can and should take a lead, and I believe that a debate would be of value.
	May we have a debate on the BBC charter and the licence fee? The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the Select Committee on 2 November that such a debate would constitute a good approach. Presumably there is a letter somewhere in the right hon. Gentleman's "pending" tray asking for one. May I ask him to give the matter proper consideration? This would be an opportune moment.
	May we have a debate on the probation service following last week's tragic events? I think everyone appreciates what a difficult job the probation service does, and how overstretched it is in supervising serious criminals. I believe that it has been hamstrung by changes in its management and structure, which have reduced its effectiveness.
	May we have a statement on the Chagos islanders in the light of today's High Court decision in their favour? Some of us think that they have been treated appallingly by this Government. We should have a statement on the consequences of that judgment.
	Finally, there is the business of tracking Ministers—knowing whether the Health Minister has resigned, whether the farms Minister has resigned, and what on earth the Deputy Prime Minister does. Perhaps we should be given a weekly bulletin in the form of a written statement from the Prime Minister. That would concentrate at least the Prime Minister's mind on what exactly his Ministers are doing.

Jack Straw: I look forward to a relationship with the hon. Gentleman: whether it will be close is another matter. As he will know, I have slightly different feelings from others about Liberal Democrats.
	I say modestly that no one is more committed to an international arms trade treaty than I am. It was a proposal of mine that I pursued before the general election, and it was an election manifesto commitment. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is committed to pursuing this issue, which we certainly need to debate at some stage; I will look into the matter.
	As to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's attending the United Nations small arms review conference, I was not due to attend it because the attendance is to be of a different level, but I will pass on to her the hon. Gentleman's question and ask her to respond to it.
	On the BBC charter and licence fee, I understand the need to debate those matters. I will look into the matter.
	On the probation service and the report on the killing by Anthony Rice, who was released on life licence, this is an appalling case and our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and community of Naomi Bryant. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will study the report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of probation on the circumstances of this killing for key recommendations, final recommendations and relevant practice recommendations, in order to determine the changes to procedures and systems that will need to be made. My right hon. Friend promises to make a statement to the House as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on the problems that people are experiencing in getting to Wales? If they do not have cash in their pockets, they are forced to travel the long way round, through Gloucester, because current legislation prohibits the use of credit and debit cards at the Severn crossing. Allowing people to pay with such cards would enable them more easily to access the wonderful delights of Wales, and improve trade. On a more serious note, a number of women have had to hunt the byways and back-ways of England late at night to find a cash machine in order to pay to cross the Severn. Allowing payment by card would greatly help those of us who need to travel to Wales regularly.

Jack Straw: Of course I will follow that up—it sounds bizarre. I am afraid that I have not had that much recent experience of travelling to Wales, but I have much—

Julian Lewis: That is your next job.

Jack Straw: I am from Essex, so I am afraid that I am completely unqualified to be Secretary of State for Wales. On the other hand, these days, perhaps that qualifies me. I use the M6 toll road, the Birmingham bypass, almost weekly, so I have plenty of experience of the issue to which my hon. Friend refers, and although it is not me who makes the payment—the man in front does so—I am damn sure that credit and debit cards can be used. I will follow up the matter with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales, because we need to sort it out quickly.

Ian Paisley: The Leader of the House has doubtless seen the report issued this week by the Ministry of Defence on Army installations in Northern Ireland. We need to debate this issue, for the simple reason that the people west of the Bann will have no Army presence at all—they will lose it completely. The headquarters of the IRA dissidents is located in that area, and they are very active in that community. People are very alarmed at the prospect of losing the Army installations entirely, and closure of the Army barracks in Ballymena, in my own constituency, has also been proposed. We need also to address the question of employment. I wish the Leader of the House well in his new job, and I hope that he will think of Ballymena and of the constituents whom I represent.

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I look forward to working with him. I of course understand the anxiety felt in Ballymena, where a 15-year-old lad was killed recently in an absolutely appalling murder. I appreciate that this is a very sensitive issue for the community whom the right hon. Gentleman represents. I understand that the decision has been taken on the basis of the military requirement to ensure that the Ministry of Defence fully meets the needs of the future long-term garrison based in Northern Ireland, so that the military can provide the residual support needed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland for as long as it is required, and that the garrison is structured as efficiently as possible to achieve value for money for the defence budget. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has already made his views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will of course pass on his renewed representations following this exchange.

Geraldine Smith: As a north-west MP, the Leader of the House may be aware what a great, family-friendly football club Morecambe is. I was at the ground on Sunday and the atmosphere was tremendous: there were old people, young people and children. This is a club that really reaches out to the community and does a lot with the town's youth. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Morecambe FC all the best for its match tonight to gain entry to the football league, and look out for an early-day motion that I hope to table, congratulating the club on its success?

Jack Straw: I do indeed send my very best wishes to Morecambe, whose family-friendly policies have, I know, been modelled on those of Blackburn Rovers. If, like Accrington Stanley, Morecambe succeed in getting into the football league, a disproportionately high number of football clubs in the various divisions— including the championship and the premiership—will come from the geographical county of Lancashire. That is a great testament to Lancashire's sporting prowess, among other things.

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment, and I very much hope that he will continue to exercise in his new role the independence of thought that he exercised in his previous one—even if that was the reason why he was moved. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has been relieved of his departmental duties, may we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why he has given the Deputy Prime Minister special exemption from paying tax on the benefits in kind that he continues to enjoy?

Jack Straw: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just been in the House, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not find an opportunity to put that question to him.

John Bercow: It was not on the Order Paper.

Jack Straw: That must have been the first occasion in the whole time that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has been here—since 1997—that an issue's not being on the Order Paper has constrained him from asking a question on it. He is losing his touch in that regard. However, I will pass the point on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

David Clelland: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. Has he recently experienced travelling in the north-east of England? If so, he will have noticed that the region has not a single three-lane motorway, and that the 40 miles of two-lane motorway that we do have are not even linked to the rest of the motorway system. That is severely restricting attempts to revive the region's economy and, combined with the Highways Agency's restrictive practices, is causing much difficulty in the region. May we have an early debate on regional transport infrastructure, and if not, a statement on how the Government intend to address the serious and continuing transport problems in the north-east?

Jack Straw: I am in the north-east a lot, and although this was not an issue that much engaged me as Foreign Secretary, now that my hon. Friend mentions it, I realise that there are no three-lane motorways in that region. None the less, the problems that the transport infrastructure in the north-east, as elsewhere in the country, has to face are a consequence of high levels of economic growth and, therefore, of much greater transport movement. He will know that there has been a dramatic turnaround since 1997 in the economy, employment levels and economic activity, and a real rejuvenation in areas such as his. That said, I will of course pass on the point that he makes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Michael Spicer: When can we expect the regulations giving effect to the parliamentary boundary changes?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised this issue with me in an informal conversation yesterday. It is a matter for the Boundary Commission and, speaking from memory, I understand that it has until next spring at the latest to produce the order. I promise the House that the order will be laid as quickly as possible after that, because it is in the interests of Members in all parts of the House that we achieve certainty about boundaries as soon as we can. As I told the right hon. Lady, my office is pursuing the matter with the secretary of the Boundary Commission, and as soon as I know when the order will be produced, the House will know.

James McGovern: I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post. Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by several constituents who have very real concerns about the new Home Office guidelines covering non-EU doctors working in the UK. This is of particular concern in Dundee, which has one of the largest teaching hospitals in Europe. It is generally accepted that there will be less need to import staff as the number of UK-born staff increases, but I fear that the guidelines have been rushed through without due cognisance of the concerns of relevant organisations such as the British Medical Association. May we have an early debate to allow hon. Members to discuss those issues, and perhaps persuade the Home Office and the Department of Health to think again, or at least engage in further consultation?

Jack Straw: I remind my hon. Friend that Health questions will take place next Tuesday. I am glad that he acknowledges that because of the dramatic increase in the number of UK-trained doctors—and those trained in the EU—the demand for doctors trained outside the EU is bound to fall. That has led to the change of policy. That said, I pay tribute to the huge contribution that overseas doctors have made to the running of the health service. My own doctor when I was a child came from India—and that was in suburban Essex—so I acknowledge their contribution. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary are also fully aware of that contribution. I looked into the issue for constituency reasons and I thought that the change of regulations was reasonable, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friends.

Robert Syms: May we have an urgent statement on the biocides directive? It was agreed in 2000, with a 10-year period for implementation, but one consequence has been a soar in the cost of the chemicals used by undertakers in the embalming process. There is some concern about gold-plating, but representations may have to be made to the EU. The embalmers of Poole demand it.

Jack Straw: Gold-plating was the first issue that I pursued the day I got to the Foreign Office five years ago, and I have been very concerned about it. A statement may not be necessary, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the former Leader of the House, to follow that up. Even when there has been no gold-plating, the way in which some directives are followed is a matter of concern, and we need to have a more practical common-sense approach to them.

Kate Hoey: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position, and I ask him to do even more than the previous Leader of the House to try to arrange a debate on early-day motion 1531 on the abolition of the Post Office card.
	 [That this House is gravely concerned by the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) decision to withdraw support for the Post Office Card Account when the existing contract expires in 2010 and in particular by the Department's attempt to kill off the Account in advance of 2010, through pilot schemes being introduced immediately when it will deny to new benefit claimants the option of opening a Post Office Card Account, inform 35,000 existing customers that they will have to use a bank or building society instead of the Post Office Card Account and require them to provide their account details, and pay benefits of 2,500 existing customers into a bank account rather than the Post Office Card Account, ignoring the preferences they made when their benefit books were stopped; condemns the fact in that, breach of all plans, these pilot schemes are being introduced without consultation; and calls on the Government to halt these pilot schemes immediately and to institute an immediate review of the DWP's proposal to abolish the Post Office Card Account by 2010.]
	More than half the Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have now signed that early-day motion, and it was a big issue in the local elections. I ask my right hon. Friend for a statement, before the pensioners parliament meets next week in Blackpool, making a commitment that the Post Office card account will not be abolished. May we have a debate in this Chamber on the issue as soon as possible?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her good wishes, which are particularly well received by me, because we have known each other for almost 40 years—

John Reid: Condi will be upset.

Jack Straw: As my right hon. Friend says.
	I know that the Post Office card account is a matter of concern and I suggest that my hon. Friend apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. Although it was an issue on the doorstep in her constituency, it could not have been so great an issue, because the Labour party did brilliantly in Lambeth, especially in her constituency, in taking seats from the Liberal Democrats and winning control of Lambeth borough council.

Angus MacNeil: In a book published this morning called "Where the Truth Lies", an essay by a Labour Member of Parliament alleges that a peerage was offered to the publisher at Heinemann as an inducement not to publish "Spycatcher". In Tony Benn's diaries, he mentions a Labour MP being offered a peerage as an inducement not to stand for election to this House. The more I discover, the more concerned I am about such practices, which are offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The fact that such practices are possible compromises Parliament severely. May we have a debate on this matter, and a moratorium on further appointments to the Lords until the system is beyond reproach? Or should we just continue to ignore it, like ostriches, with the very real possibility of corruption in our midst?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman must be pretty desperate if he has to drag up ancient history and go back to "Spycatcher", which dates back, I think, to 1976—[Hon. Members: "1986."] Well, it was 20 years ago. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but in case he has not noticed I remind him that there was a Government of a different complexion in office at that time. Very important changes have been made, with all-party support, to the manner of appointing Members of the other place. Those changes are transparent and they are followed—he knows that and the House knows that. He needs to accept that and not make completely unwarranted allegations against Members of Parliament.

Jessica Morden: Last Friday I met the community friendship group in my constituency, who quizzed me on the progress of the draft Mental Health Bill. Can my right hon. Friend reveal the timetable for the Bill?

Jack Straw: I should own up to the fact that the Mental Health Bill was my idea as Home Secretary—

Chris Bryant: What goes around, comes around.

Jack Straw: Indeed. I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) an answer off the top of my head, but I will make an answer—I mean, I will find the answer and give it to her.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has moved from a very important job to an equally important job—seeking to maintain this cradle of democracy. He will appreciate that Members on both sides of the House would like opportunities to debate in the House vital, important and current issues. Will he seek to ensure that Back Benchers have greater say in how the time of the House is spent and, once or twice a month perhaps, may we debate issues that are of critical importance not only to the House but to the country?

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I share his view about the importance of this job. As I said in my first outing as Leader of the House on Tuesday, I have many distinguished predecessors who have held this title and this portfolio having held equally distinguished portfolios in other respects. On the issue that he raises, I know—because I met him shortly after my appointment—how strongly he feels about the establishment of a business Committee for the House. I will look at the proposal carefully, although I was not aware of it until last Friday when I got the job. I have not made up my mind, and I will discuss it with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee before pursuing the matter.
	On the specific issue of whether we should revert to the previous arrangement of ballots for private Members' motions as well as ballots for private Members' Bills, I recall that that was the arrangement when I came into the House. It meant that every Friday in a Session was a sitting Friday, and there were no constituency Fridays. The House made a decision about that, but we have also had the introduction of Westminster Hall, which has made a huge difference and greatly expanded the time for holding Ministers to account. In any case, I will consider the proposal.

David Evennett: I offer my congratulations to the Leader of the House and wish him well in his new duties. Will he arrange for a debate on London in the near future, especially after the recent local election results, which highlighted the dissatisfaction across London with Labour councils and the Labour Government? We always used to have a debate in the Chamber on London every Session, and I urge him to arrange one in the near future.

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He can make whatever he wants of the Conservatives' relative success in the local elections. I must point out, however, that I forgot to mention in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that the Conservatives, too, lost a seat in Lambeth, as they did to Labour in Blackburn.

David Evennett: I asked about a debate on London.

Jack Straw: Yes, I remember the debates on London. There is insufficient time for all the debates requested. There is also an issue about how long the House wants to sit and whether it wants to sit on a Friday. That is not a problem for me, but it may be for other Members.

Clive Betts: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. I assume that this week he saw the announcement from the Health Minister about the intention to bring maximum waiting times down to 18 weeks by 2008. I was, however, slightly concerned to read from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People that the 18-week waiting time will not apply to hearing services. That is bad news for people who are applying for a digital hearing aid, particularly the hardest of hearing who currently have an analogue hearing aid, and so go to the bottom of the queue when applying for a digital hearing aid. Could he arrange for a debate in this House on those matters, to give credit to the Government for getting waiting times down to 18 weeks, and to look at whether we can extend that to hearing services?

Jack Straw: Health questions take place on Tuesday and that is the appropriate time to pursue the matter. I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned all the improvements in the health service that have taken place under this Government. One of the many reasons why I am so pleased to do this job is that it gives me an opportunity to talk about the Government's record and the dramatic way in which we have improved the health service. Yes, there are problems and there will always be problems. Now we have 85,000 more nurses, 32,000 more doctors and a huge increase in investment. As everybody knows, that benefits every constituency. Notwithstanding some of the problems, there have been dramatic improvements in the health care being delivered. It is a testament to the success of our policies. Just to mention Blackburn once again—I spent 18 years in Opposition, receiving letters from Health Ministers saying that they would provide us with money for a new hospital; the only problem was that the cheque never came. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) ensured that the cheque was delivered within a year of Labour taking office, and that £140 million hospital is now close to completion.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. Even in my time in the House he is not the first to make the transition from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House. Indeed, if he is looking for a role model, he could do a lot worse than look to the late Robin Cook.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement about the Government's role in the decision to deprive post offices of the right to sell television licences over the counter and give the contract to PayPoint? This gives rise to an acute situation in my constituency, where we have only five PayPoint outlets. In Orkney they are in the main towns and in Shetland we have only one. There is no provision in the outlying districts of the mainlands or in any of the outer isles. Surely if people are to be allowed to buy television licences over the counter, that facility should be available to my constituents as well as to those on the mainland and in urban areas.

Jack Straw: We have always accepted that there needs to be special provision for the isles, and I will ensure that that particular point is pursued with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I, too, have looked into this, and there are two reasons why the BBC—not the Government—decided to let the contract to a private company rather than to the Post Office. First, it estimated that tens of millions of pounds would be saved from the costs of collection, which could be spent on programming. Secondly, it wished to see a new system of collection of the television licence fee, which had more, not fewer, points of sale, and could be used on Sundays and at night. I gather that the new system will provide that.

David Drew: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. It is good that normal humour will be resumed. I completely concur with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on the need for a debate on Iran.
	May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 2131 in my name?
	 [That this House applauds the signing of a peace settlement between the major rebel group the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the government of Sudan on 5th May 2006; welcomes the intervention of the Rt. Hon. Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, and the US Deputy Secretary of State, Robert Zoellick, in the mediation process that led to the settlement; recognises the peace settlement to be a positive step towards ending a conflict that has displaced a population of over two million and caused the death of more than 180,000 people; cautions against excessive optimism as the peace settlement is but a first step, agreed to in part by the major rebel movement, SLM, and rejected by the other two rebel movements; and urges that in order for the settlement to bear long term peaceful solution to the Darfur conflict the two parties need to commit genuinely to an end to the conflict and that the international community, especially the UK Government, must continue to put pressure on the parties to honour their pledges, pursue opportunities to include the other rebel groups within the peace process and provide sufficient funding for the African Union and for the humanitarian aid effort.]
	It draws attention to the peace settlement in Darfur. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development present. It is important that we pay attention to the work that he and Robert Zoellick did in bringing forward a peace settlement. It is crucial that all parties now sign it, and that that part of the world gets the peace that it desperately needs.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I echo his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Knowing this subject as I do, I have no doubt that but for his attendance and that of Robert Zoellick, the Deputy Secretary from the US State Department, this peace deal would not have been achieved. It is an example of active diplomacy by a senior Minister in the British Government. What we now must do, as my right hon. Friend said in the Cabinet this morning, is ensure that the peace deal is implemented—a bigger challenge—and accepted by all sides.

Peter Robinson: I extend to the right hon. Gentleman my best wishes on his new post. May I drag him back to a recollection from his last existence when he was helpfully dealing with a case for me relating to Nassima Sadia—a young girl who was abducted from Belfast by her Algerian father? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the torment of her mother and the difficulties with those who are not signatories to the Hague convention on international child abduction. Could we have a debate in the House about those issues and the steps that the Government can take and have taken in such cases, where clearly there is considerable anguish and concern in the families involved?

Jack Straw: Of course I remember the case that the hon. Gentleman raised with me. I followed it up and responded quickly to him on the concerns of this terrible story. I promise that I will discuss the matter personally with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. There is no argument between our parties about what needs to be done. The issue is about how we pursue foreign Governments who have either not signed up to the Hague convention or, where they have, are not implementing it. I promise the hon. Gentleman and the family whom he represents so assiduously that this will be followed up, and I am happy to talk to him afterwards about it.

London Bombings

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the 7 July bombings.
	I am today publishing the official account of the bombings in London on 7 July last year. Also today the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on intelligence aspects of the bombings has been published, together with the Government's response. I very much regret the sombre nature of my first statement to the House as Home Secretary. I send my condolences, as the new Home Secretary, to all those who suffered in those events and I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
	The official account published today summarises what we know about the bombers and how and why they did what they did. It is not yet a complete picture, both because we have had to withhold some information for legal and security reasons and because the police investigation is continuing and we may discover more. It will be for the legal process to confirm formally what happened, but as is now well known, there were four suicide attacks carried out by four British citizens. Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. Those attacks killed 52 people over and above the bombers themselves and injured over 700.
	The first three bombs went off simultaneously at 8.50 am on the underground. The first, in a Circle line tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations, was carried out by Tanweer and killed seven people and injured 171. The second, on the Circle line just outside Edgware Road, was carried out by Khan and killed six people and injured 163. The third, on the Piccadilly line between King's Cross and Russell Square, was carried out by Lindsay and killed 26 and injured over 340.
	Just under an hour later at 9.47 am, Hussain detonated the fourth device on a No. 30 bus in Tavistock square. This killed 13 and injured over 110. It remains unclear why Hussain did not detonate his bomb at the same time as the others. It may be that he was frustrated by delays on the underground heading north from King's Cross. However, it now appears that he bought a battery after coming out of the underground system, which could mean that he had difficulty detonating the device earlier. But I stress that this remains speculation at this point.
	We now know from CCTV footage and witness statements that Khan, Tanweer, and Hussain travelled down from Leeds in a hire car that morning and met up with Lindsay in Luton station car park. Further devices were found in one of the cars which may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey down. They do not appear to indicate a fifth bomber and there is no evidence to suggest this elsewhere. The four then travelled from Luton to King's Cross, leaving at 7.40 am and arriving at 8.23 am.
	Owing to some outstanding police and security service work in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, the police were able publicly to confirm the identities of Tanweer and Hussain on 14 July and Khan and Lindsay on 16 July. The key factors leading them to this were finding credit and other cards in the names of the four at the sites—in Khan's case his cards were found at more than one site—Hussain's family calling the police emergency hotline reporting him missing, and subsequently discovering that he had travelled to London with Khan and Tanweer; the discovery by the security service that Khan, and subsequently Tanweer, had been picked up on the periphery of another investigation; the CCTV images of four men with rucksacks matching their descriptions at King's Cross and Luton; and the discovery of the two cars in Luton car park.
	Khan, Tanweer and Hussain were all second-generation British citizens of Pakistani origin from the same small area of Leeds. Lindsay was a British citizen of Jamaican origin who had grown up in Huddersfield and moved to Aylesbury after his marriage. Khan was a well-respected teaching assistant and youth worker, aged 30 at the time of the bombings. Tanweer, who was just 22, had recently left university. Hussain was only 18 and had just completed sixth form college, and Lindsay, who was 19, had left school and had a series of odd jobs thereafter.
	The account which is published today sets out what we know about their early lives and how they may have been radicalised. The picture remains incomplete at this stage, but, with the partial exception of Lindsay, there is little that marks them out as particularly vulnerable to radicalisation and little in their subsequent behaviour which could have given much indication to those around them of their intentions. It is not yet known whether others in the UK were involved in indoctrinating the group or helping them to plan, but Lindsay appears to have been influenced by an extremist preacher who is now serving a prison sentence. Their motivation appears to have been a mixture of anger at perceived injustices by the west against Muslims and a desire for martyrdom.
	The account that we publish today also details what we know about influence from abroad. Khan is known to have made a number of trips to Pakistan, including one in July 2003 when he is believed to have had some relevant training. Khan and Tanweer travelled together to Pakistan between November 2004 and February 2005 and are assessed as likely to have met al-Qaeda figures during this visit. There were a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings. We do not know their content. Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for launching the attacks, but the extent of its involvement is unclear.
	Shortly after the second Pakistan trip—the trip from November 2004 to February 2005—the group appear to have begun planning in earnest. They appear to have assembled the devices at 18 Alexandra grove, a flat in another part of Leeds. As far as experts can establish, the bombs were made with ingredients that are readily commercially available, and to have required only limited expertise to assemble. The operation appears to have been self-financed and the cash raised by methods that would be extremely difficult to identify as related to terrorism or other serious criminality. Our best estimate is that the operation cost less than £8,000 overall.
	The account published today does not address the emergency response, but it is right that I should place on record my thanks and admiration for the bravery of so many—the police, those working on the underground, buses and trains, medical staff, firefighters, disaster recovery teams, volunteers and ordinary people, including and perhaps especially the survivors. The Government have separately conducted a lessons learned exercise addressing many aspects of the emergency response, and we will publish the results shortly. The London Assembly's inquiry, due to report soon, is also considering this.
	I now turn to the Intelligence and Security Committee report. The Committee is, of course, independent of Government, but it has had access to a wide range of highly classified documents. Its report assesses what was known prior to July, how the threat level and alert state systems operated, how the threat was assessed, and issues of coverage, resources and co-operation between the security and intelligence agencies and between the agencies and the police. The House will obviously wish to give it serious consideration. The Prime Minister has presented to Parliament today the Government's response to the report, which generally welcomes its conclusions.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), as Chairman of the Committee, has spoken in more detail about the report this morning, but I note first that the report sets out that the security service had come across two of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, on the margins of other investigations. On the basis of what was then known, the security service made the judgement that they were peripheral to the main investigation and there was no intelligence to suggest that they were separately interested in planning an attack against the UK. Although limited attempts were made at that stage to identify the two men, the security service decided to concentrate its resources on higher priorities, including plots known at that time to attack the UK. The ISC report concludes that this decision was understandable.
	Secondly, the report concludes that it was not unreasonable to reduce the country threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" in May last year on the grounds that there was no intelligence of a current credible plot to attack the UK at that time.
	The term "substantial" still represented a high level of threat, and the report concludes that that reduction was unlikely to have altered the alertness of the responders or to have affected the chances of preventing the 7 July attacks. None the less, the Committee recommends changes to the system. The Government have reviewed it and will be making changes to create a simpler, more flexible and more proportionate system.
	The report makes a number of other useful recommendations, which we have addressed in the Government response. It also covers the issue of resourcing, which I will address in a moment. I am grateful to the Committee for its very thorough and constructive approach.
	What the official account and the ISC report demonstrate is the very real challenge that the police and the agencies face in combating this new kind of terrorism. The bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, far less of violent intention. At least three were apparently as well integrated as anyone else. Their radicalisation, to the extent that we know how and where it happened, appears to have been conducted away from places with any obvious association with extremism.
	The willingness of the men to use suicide bombing as their method and to attack vulnerable, civilian targets—as is familiar from previous attacks—made them doubly difficult to defend against. That is not a comfortable message, but it is important that we are honest about it if we are to defend ourselves against the threat effectively.
	The key lesson—this is at the heart of the Government's counter-terrorist strategy—is that the response needs to be collective, with Government, Parliament, police, agencies, local communities, faith leaders and international co-operation all playing their part, and that it needs to be completely comprehensive.
	We have a counter-terrorism strategy for achieving that, known as "Contest", which aims to reduce the risk from international terrorism. As part of the strategy, we are seeking to prevent terrorism by stopping young people being indoctrinated into extremist violence. In that, we need the help of Muslim leaders and the community to fight the distortion of Islam that turns young people into terrorists. We have taken new powers to criminalise encouragement to terrorism. We need to work together to show that democracy is the only legitimate means of changing policies, and to ensure that all young people in all communities can see how engagement in British society can bring about change for the better. I know that my predecessor as Home Secretary led an extensive round of consultations with all sections of the Muslim community, and I intend to develop that.
	Secondly, we need an effective and adequately resourced law enforcement and intelligence effort. The ISC report suggests that we might have had a better chance of preventing the July attacks if more resources had been in place sooner. Even that, of course, would have been no guarantee of preventing the attack. The Government have put in substantially increased resources, particularly since 9/11. Further resources were provided last autumn. The Security Service is expanding as fast as its top management believes is organisationally possible.
	The specific police budget for counter-terrorism will have grown fourfold between the financial years 2002-03 and 2007-08—that is, in the period after 9/11. We have allocated £30 million extra next year and £60 million the year after to expand special branch and other specialist counter-terrorism capacity outside London. Indeed, the total cross-Government budget for counter-terrorism and resilience has more than doubled, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the same period.
	In addition, general policing makes a significant contribution to the counter-terrorist effort. We will implement neighbourhood policing in all forces by next April and will expand the number of community support officers from around 6,500 to 16,000 in that period. That will improve our capacity to gather local intelligence to support the counter-terrorist element.
	In that context, I want to put it on the record that the police and agencies have disrupted many attacks against the UK since 9/11, including three since last July alone. However, the reality is that difficult choices have to be made between priorities in intelligence-led operations, whatever the level of resources.
	Thirdly, we need effective international co-operation. This is both a local and a global threat. We are a long way from being the only targets. As the House will know, there have been appalling attacks in the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and Indonesia, to name but a few. We need to have the closest possible law enforcement and intelligence links with our many allies in the war against global terrorism.
	We also need rapidly to develop European co-operation. The former Home Secretary made that his key priority for the UK presidency last year. He achieved important concrete outcomes, including common provisions on the retention of telecommunications data that will make it more difficult for terrorists to communicate across borders to plan their crimes. I will make it a major priority of mine to develop that co-operation further.
	The bombings were despicable attacks on ordinary people going about their normal daily business. It is a tribute to Londoners—the people of our capital city—that the city recovered with such remarkable speed. The victims have shown tremendous courage in rebuilding their lives, but I know that many victims, and particularly bereaved families, are still trying to find their own way to come to terms with what, for them, was a terrible personal tragedy. I think that it is right that we try to explain what the Government know about what happened that day, and I hope that many of the victims will find the account that we have published today helpful.
	I know that some will find it painful to relive those terrible events again, and that some will continue to feel that there should be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for supporting victims. In the short period that I have been Home Secretary, and before that, she has explained to me the strong views that some of the families hold on that subject. I find that perfectly understandable, but the House will know that my predecessor as Home Secretary explained last year why the Government had decided that it was not right to hold such an inquiry a decision with which I concur. However, I should like to offer some further explanation to those most directly affected.
	I shall therefore be writing to all those who were bereaved by the 7 July attacks to offer them the chance to come and talk the issue through. I and my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary will convene a series of meetings, at which families will be able to ask detailed questions about the documents that have been published today. At those meetings, I hope that I will be able to explain to them why I do not think a public inquiry would be the best step to take. Not least among the reasons is that such an inquiry would involve diverting very precious resources needed for the security and protection of everyone, at a critical time.
	As Home Secretary, my principal duty is to protect the public. I am determined that we will learn the lessons from the official account and ISC report, and strengthen our defences against the terrorist threat, but international terrorism will not be defeated by the security services, the police or the Government acting alone. It will be beaten only by all of us in this country working together to defeat what is a threat to us all. That is what all of us must achieve together.

David Davis: I welcome the Home Secretary to his new post, and I am sorry that his first outing is on such a tragic subject. I join him in offering our condolences to those who suffered in the attacks and our thanks to and admiration for those whose bravery and commitment on the day and afterwards saved so many lives.
	The issue before us is, as the Home Secretary implied, of great importance. The attacks in London on 7 July and 21 July were attacks on our people, our country and our way of life. Accordingly, our ability to deal with such attacks and to learn from our errors is critical to the defence of the realm, our people and our way of life.
	It is important to start by acknowledging the real strengths of our security services, which have thwarted a significant number of attacks. For that, the whole House thanks and congratulates them. However, it will not serve them or the safety of the British public if we do not learn from the mistakes made in these cases, the better to prevent them in the future.
	During the attack and in the immediate aftermath, the Government claimed that the bombers were previously unknown to the authorities, because they had no record of previous criminal or terrorist activity. We now know that that is untrue. Both Sidique Khan and Shezad Tanweer were known to the authorities in connection with another very serious terrorist bomb plot. On the basis of accounts in the newspapers, rather than the reports, it appears that Shezad Tanweer was picked up by a foreign intelligence agency one month before the attack, but that that information was never acted on by the UK security services, so I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true. Again on the basis of documentation given to newspapers rather than these reports, it seems that MI5 taped Mohammad Sidique Khan talking about his wish to fight in the jihad and saying his goodbyes to his family—a clear indication that he was intending a suicide mission. The newspapers also tell us that he was known to have attended late-stage discussions on planning another major terror attack that was subsequently thwarted. Again, I ask the Home Secretary whether that is true.
	Despite all that, the surveillance on Khan was called off months before the attack. Why? Was it, as intimated in the Intelligence and Security Committee report, because of a shortage of resources? Is it true that there were not enough MI5 agents to cover possible suspects and that that led to surveillance of dangerous terrorists being terminated on that occasion? The ISC report states that
	"better appreciation of the speed and scale with which the threat against the UK could develop might have led the Services to achieve a step change in capacity earlier".
	Did that occur because the resources for MI5 were not increased to meet the necessary step change until 2004, some three years after 9/11? And, because it takes three years to recruit, screen and train agents, the expansion will not take full effect until 2008.
	Two of the bombers went to terrorist training camps in Pakistan and undertook weapons training, as the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement. Paragraph 75(e) of the official account is very vague on that matter. It is said that the British intelligence agencies did not obtain any usable information on these people's activities from the Pakistani intelligence services. Why did that happen?
	We are also told—the Home Secretary alluded to it—that Khan and Tanweer met al-Qaeda leaders and discussed jihad with them. How, then, can the Government represent these people as members of an independent freelance group? If they are, how did al-Qaeda get a copy of Khan's suicide video in order to splice on to it its own propaganda, which involved its second most important member, before it was broadcast in September?
	I take the opportunity of paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has done a remarkable job with his Committee, which produced an extremely insightful report, as the Home Secretary recognised. Having said that, although the Intelligence and Security Committee is impartial, wise and of the highest integrity, it is constitutionally limited in what it can achieve. That is partly because of the limitation on its investigative resources, partly because of its remit and partly because it is constituted in such a way as to be entirely dependent on the intelligence agencies for its information and on their willingness to disclose such information.
	The process has, frankly, raised more questions than answers. After the 9/11 tragedy, the United States Senate had a very well resourced and independent report with very hard-hitting conclusions. After Madrid, the Spanish Government had an independent report and learned serious lessons from it. In this country, after the Falklands war, even though secret intelligence issues were at stake, we had the independent Franks report. Almost every previous major intelligence failure was dealt with by an independent inquiry, but I am afraid that that is not what we have today in the official account, which expresses the Government's view rather than an independent view. As a result, the process has left too many questions unresolved.
	In the interests of people who have lost their lives and of protecting those who have not, can we now have what we should have had from the start—a fully resourced independent inquiry into what was clearly a major failure of our intelligence systems?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I, too, regret the fact that we are dealing with such a sombre subject on my first outing as Home Secretary. May I assure him of our willingness to learn? I do not regard this as a party political issue: it is one that unites the nation in the desire to protect ourselves and our citizens and to learn. If necessary, we shall learn from each other, and I stand ready to do that.
	Let me deal with the matter of process first. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat underestimates the scope, integrity and intrusiveness of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

David Davis: indicated dissent.

John Reid: No, not the integrity; the right hon. Gentleman did not question that, but he felt that the ISC was limited by statute and so forth.
	I merely point out, in the same spirit of generosity with which he welcomed me, that the scope, remit and statute under which the ISC was established was defined not by this Government, but by the Conservative Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served. Secondly, the reason for public inquiries, including the Franks inquiry, prior to the establishment of the ISC, was precisely because of the absence of such a scrutiny Committee. It was appropriate for the ISC to be given the task. It is independent of the Government and values its independence. To the best of my knowledge, it has been given as much assistance, aid and leeway as possible, and I believe that it has produced a very useful report.
	Let me turn to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. It was legitimate for him to raise them, and I will answer insofar as I can, without intruding into areas that affect operational matters. His first point was about several newspaper stories on the four bombers. As to the Tanweer story, relating to what happened a month before 7/7, I am told by the Security Service that it has no record of that allegation, so I do not think that there is a factual basis to it.
	What is known is that there was some peripheral intelligence on two of the bombers in connection with another investigation. So far as I can understand from paragraph 45, on page 14, from all the relevant intelligence material and from the independent scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a judgment was made on whether the actions and assessments of the Security Service were understandable and correct at the time. The report confirms that the Security Service came across two individuals, who were subsequently identified as Khan and Tanweer, on the peripheries of another investigation. However, I should mention three heavy caveats.
	First, it was only after 7 July that the Security Service was able fully to identify the two men, given the massive concentration of resources then transferred. Secondly, there was no intelligence at the time that these men were interested in planning an attack on the UK in the UK. That is specifically alluded to on page 13, in paragraph 43 of the ISC report. Thirdly, the intelligence at the time did indeed suggest a focus, but either on training and insurgency operations outside the country in Pakistan, in which the men might be interested, or on fraud. In relation to the investigation at the time, it was peripheral to what was regarded as a bigger and more important operation. It is in that light, on that important subject—I accept that it is an important and legitimate one for the right hon. Gentleman to raise—that the ISC says
	"we conclude that, in the light of the other priority investigations being conducted and the limitations on Security Service resources, the decisions not to give greater investigative priority to these two individuals were understandable".
	Incidentally, officers followed up a report on the third bomber, Jermaine Lindsay, because again there was a peripheral connection to another case—of aggravated burglary—but it was only established later that the contact telephone number was on file.
	I dealt with that matter in some measure, because the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point. I shall turn to resources, which he also mentioned. I covered them earlier, but in the period after 9/11 until 2007-08, there has been a quadrupling of the resources available to the police and counter-terrorism. In the same period, across Government, there has been a doubling of resources for counter-terrorism and resilience, from less than £1 billion to more than £2 billion. At any given stage, there are physical limitations on what can be achieved, because of difficulties in recruitment, skills identification, training and so on. It is not merely a matter of applying resources and bringing in lots of people without relevant skills.
	Let me give two quotes. The director general of the Security Service told the ISC:
	"What we are trying to do is the maximum we think we can bear in terms of recruitment, training, vetting, expansion, scale, new officers, a big northern operations centre...it is a very challenging programme."
	In other words, according to the director general, the limitations are not the resources being allocated but the fact that the service cannot expand any faster.
	At paragraph 140 of the report, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, C, said:
	"If you try to bring in more than a certain number of new people every year you can literally bust the system...you can only tolerate a certain number of inexperienced people dealing with very sensitive subjects."
	On al-Qaeda, there are circumstantial links, some of which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out: the recording of the video, the Khan reference to al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility and so on. There are assumptions and speculations about contacts. The ISC report says:
	"The extent to which the 7 July attacks were externally planned directed or controlled by contacts in Pakistan or elsewhere remains unclear."
	That is what I said at the beginning. The matter is still under investigation. Yes, there is circumstantial evidence, but I do not think there is anything that would merit my saying at this stage that there is conclusive evidence that the attack was planned in advance rather than being claimed as a success afterwards, ex post facto, by al-Qaeda.

Nicholas Clegg: I, too, welcome the Home Secretary to his new position. As the gravity of the events being discussed shows, he occupies a position of enormous importance to the security and welfare of the country. I share, of course, in his and the other expressions of condolence extended to the victims and the families of victims of the horrific attack on 7 July last year. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement.
	We welcome the Intelligence and Security Committee report. As has been said, it is a thorough, insightful and highly professional report and raises crucial questions about the resourcing and organisation of our security services. Its scrutiny of the system of threat level warnings must in particular be responded to swiftly in order to safeguard public confidence, as the Home Secretary acknowledged.
	The report raises queries about the increase in resources demanded by and made available to the security services. It is always easy to be wise with hindsight, and I acknowledge what the Home Secretary has just said about the practical limitation of increasing resources too fast in too short a period. Notwithstanding those caveats, there seems to be some lingering reasonable doubt about whether resources were increased with sufficient speed before the events of last July, not least because we now know that the real step change in the increase of resources did not really kick in until late 2004.
	Notwithstanding the quality of the ISC report, does the Home Secretary agree that it and the Home Office narrative on the events of 7 July that he set out today are by definition limited in scope and leave some of the most important questions unanswered? To deal with the new threat of home-grown terrorism, we need to do more to try to understand the nature of that threat. Surely, there is no logical reason why the right hon. Gentleman should resist calls for a public inquiry when such an inquiry could deal with issues not covered by the reports. It could help to foster public understanding about the evolution of home-grown terrorism in our cities and towns and thus help our intelligence services to target resources effectively in those cities and towns.
	We strongly welcome the Government's organisation of seven working groups under the aegis of the preventing extremism together initiative, which reported last November. That was an important first step in helping to assess, analyse and tackle, in a collaborative approach with members of our Muslim communities, the complexity of home-grown fundamentalism in some of those communities. Would not a public inquiry help to pick up from where the initiative left off to promote the collective anti-terrorism effort that the Home Secretary rightly emphasised in his statement?
	Finally, may I urge the Home Secretary to consider carefully the emphasis in the ISC report, at paragraph 137, on the crucial role of effective local policing in gathering intelligence to identify individuals and communities susceptible to the kind of fundamentalism that can lead to such horrific terrorist atrocities? Does not he accept that the headlong rush towards the regional merger of police authorities, more often than not against their will, risks uprooting the foundations of our local police exactly when we should be strengthening, not weakening, the value of local policing in our counter-terrorism strategy?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman. On his last point, yes, local intelligence is obviously important. That is why we have about 13,000 more police officers on the beat and the number of community support officers is increasing to 16,000. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I decline his invitation to comment on another major issue, police restructuring, which I have not had the chance to look at—it has been a rather busy five days—but I accept the need for local intelligence.
	The hon. Gentleman raised three other matters, the first of which was resources. He appeared to indicate that there was little increase in resources in the years after 2002 and that it was slanted towards the end of the period. Actually, if we consider counter-terrorist and resilience spending since 2001 by Department, across Government, the amounts are £923 million and £988 million, with £1,257 million immediately afterwards; the next figures are £1,479 million, £1.665 billion and £2.045 billion, so there has in fact been a steady cross-Government increase.
	Although I fully accept that there will always be a demand for greater resources, Members should be cautious, as was the ISC, when talking about them. The paragraph in the report referring to resources begins with the following words:
	"It could be argued (but it would be largely with hindsight)"—
	the only exact science known to men and women is hindsight. The Committee phrased that paragraph very carefully; before saying that perhaps more resources could have helped, it noted that the observation was made "largely with hindsight".
	I have one more point about resources. There has been a substantial increase, but even if resources were infinite, the truth of the matter in respect of intelligence is, as we must say constantly—and as the Butler inquiry pointed out—that even with unlimited resources we can never be 100 per cent. certain. We cannot predict the future. There is not 100 per cent. security, nor 100 per cent. predictability. Intelligence is, by its nature, a collection of fragmentary, partial, sometimes subjective and sometimes mistaken pieces of information, which must be put together by human judgment. So there is a matter of resources, but we should not pretend that, if then or in the future, we supplied infinite resources, we would have infinite wisdom about the future.
	More briefly, on two things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the first was an inquiry, which is very important—I fully understand the concerns of the families of victims and those caught up in the attacks. I fully understand the questions that they have to ask about the trauma and the whos and whys of how this happened. All of us would understand that—it is a natural human reaction—and this week I have therefore carefully considered the call for a public inquiry, as did my predecessor, but it would mean a pretty massive reallocation and diversion of resources over an extended period if it was done. That is not just an inconvenience and an expense; it is a serious matter.
	It would mean a reallocation of resources away from those needing protection at a critical time, when our security forces and security agencies are carrying out an absolutely essential job—the protection of people in this country—and in my judgment that diversion of resources would truly put others at risk to achieve an objective that can be achieved largely in other ways, which is why I am offering these meetings and reports. Of course, the Home Affairs Committee, the ISC, the London Assembly, the coroners and the ongoing criminal investigations, as well as our account, contribute towards that.
	I agree entirely, however, with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need to engage the Muslim community. We need to work together in this country—every single one of us—because the threat is against every single one of us. In the aftermath of 7/7, we set in train both a short-term working programme of ministerial visits and then the longer-term actions in the Government's prevention delivery plan. I do not pretend that that is perfect, but it is the start of serious, prolonged and, I believe, in-depth engagement with the Muslim community in this country, because we need that.

Frank Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his statement and for the narrative that he has provided, and the ISC for the report that it has provided; and we all look forward to the London Assembly's report on the response to the horrors of 7 July. Speaking as someone who represents the area in which the two worst atrocities took place, I think that it is necessary for us to accept that the activities of the security services will always be imperfect. It looks as though they had been geared largely to trying to trace connections to centrally organised atrocities, and we may have been caught out a little in the response to what might be described as semi-spontaneous local groups, which may have had vague connections—but that is a very difficult task.
	We should remember in all this that the object of the people who support terrorism is to try to divide us one from another. When we are considering all the evidence that becomes available, we should remember that, whatever shortcomings may be revealed, it was not the security services, it was not the police, it was not Ministers and it was not the Opposition who actually exploded four suicide bombs; it was four suicide bombers who did the killing and maiming. What we must do is to concentrate on trying to ensure that we do not have any more of them. We should not spend our time pointing fingers at one another, when we did not do it.

John Reid: I agree entirely with every word that my right hon. Friend has just said.

Iain Duncan Smith: I start by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his position. We are old friends and counterparts, and I genuinely wish him the best of luck in what are difficult circumstances.
	I simply refer the Home Secretary back to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I am of the opinion that, on balance, following the right hon. Gentleman's statement, we need a more independent inquiry. I recommend the report from the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), because it illustrates some of the weaknesses. Yes, the bombers are to blame absolutely, but we need to understand what has gone wrong, so that we can rectify it. In that spirit, I refer the Home Secretary to paragraphs 103 and 108, which suggest a complete misreading of some major issues internally in the UK—that of whether suicide bombings were ever likely to take place in the UK or Europe, when there was already evidence of the shoe bombers and others in Tel Aviv, and also the idea that home-grown terrorists were not a major issue for the UK. Again, the Committee quite rightly points out that there was a great deal of evidence to suggest that that was not the case and that we should have been concerned.
	I am one who genuinely believes that we do this in the interests of the United Kingdom, our citizens and our friends, and of course, as a London MP, I include those who were devastated by the bombings. I urge the Home Secretary to think again about the inquiry, not because we want to point fingers, but because we desperately need to show the public that we have learned the lessons and that their security is paramount.

John Reid: Of course, over the years, I have grown to respect the right hon. Gentleman's views on these matters. There are two different aspects. One of them is the natural, legitimate questions of the families themselves, and I am trying in consultation and co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to address some of them in meetings or through the account that we are giving today. The other one—the right hon. Gentleman points it out, and I accept it—is that we can always learn to improve the efficacy of our security services. I am not instantly persuaded that the best way to do that is with a public inquiry, but I will obviously want to talk, having read and reread the report, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is Chairman of the ISC, in the first instance. It is important to stress that the ISC is independent of the Government. There are people on it who would not sympathise with the Government on a range of issues but, on this one, share the same patriotic commitment—we would all do so—to protect our country. So I will undertake to hold discussions with my right hon. Friend to find out whether there are areas where we ought to ask his Committee perhaps to protrude a little further in intrusiveness to advise us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obviously, these are very important and complicated matters, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. We have not got an unlimited amount of time. If we can now, please, have brief questions and perhaps reasonably brief answers from the Home Secretary, although it is a complicated matter, we can get as many Members in as possible.

Paul Murphy: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. I also welcome his report and the meeting that he is suggesting we have to deal with the difficult issues about these tragic events. The thrust of his report is very similar to the Committee's report in that it talks about the new and considerable challenge that our country faces. The Committee recognised the substantial increase in resources that came to the intelligence service over the past number of years, but it also recognised that translating money into people and human resources was quite another matter. Finally, may I ask him to reflect on the points in the ISC's report that refer to the lessons that we can learn from the events of the past months and, indeed, the conclusions of his Committee's report, so that we can ensure that, in years to come, we can at least help to prevent such terrible attacks on our people?

John Reid: Yes indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his work and that of his Committee. I assure him that I have already considered, and will continue to dwell on, some of the critical points that he has offered to us for consideration. There are points about the system of threat levels and alert states being confusing, the underplaying in the assessment of home-grown terrorism, the degree of failure to understand and apply strategic thinking to that, the limitations of intelligence not included in a sufficiently systematic way in intelligence assessments, and so on. I am well aware that we are talking about something that neither in its intention, nor in its outcome, reflects carte blanche agreement with everything that was done or with a whitewash. There are critical elements. That makes the general conclusions and the general commendations of what was done by the security services all the more pertinent and substantial.

Michael Mates: May I particularly welcome the Government's response to the specific recommendations of the Committee that the threat level and alert state system arrangements need clarity, transparency and simplicity? When will the review that the Government say has been completed be published, and, more importantly, when will the recommendations be implemented? Does the Home Secretary agree that part of the confusion that arose between threat levels and alert states was due to the fact that, although the threat level was reduced, the alert states were not? The alert states are the ones that matter to the people on the ground. In particular, as far as London Transport was concerned, that alert state remained very high and was not reduced. Finally, there have been reports in the press over the past few days that, had different decisions been made about the priorities, this atrocity might have been avoided. Is not the other side of that coin that, had the resources been put into trying to prevent this atrocity, one of the other atrocities that was prevented could equally well have happened?

John Reid: That is precisely the point. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That is also my worry about allocating and diverting resources towards a public inquiry. On his question about the threat level, I accept the recommendations of the Committee. As he will know, the difference between the two threat levels reflected whether there was knowledge of a specific threat at that time. "Substantial" is still a very high level of threat, but it meant that there was not specific knowledge at that time. As he said, that can be confusing. The response or readiness level was not automatically reduced, although the threat level came down. The reduced threat level indicated to experts that there was not a specific threat. However, to the man in the street, it could be taken to mean a reduction in operational capability. It did not mean that—thank goodness—on this occasion. I will undertake to review that and implement things as soon as possible, and to publish what I can, although I do not pretend that I can give a carte blanche that we will publish everything to do with threat levels.

Andrew Dismore: As my right hon. Friend may know, I have been raising in this House for many years—long before 9/11—the activities of fundamentalist extremists. Although it is true that we should lay the blame for what happened fair and square on the four bombers, the extremists who indoctrinated four young, apparently decent men bear heavy responsibility for the hatred that they brought to them, which ultimately led to these terrible tragedies. We have to learn from experience. That is true not just of the security services, but in terms of how we approach the victims and the families of those who died and how we provide support after the event. When my right hon. Friend meets the victims and the bereaved families, will he make sure that hon. Members in whose constituencies those people live are invited to attend? Will he also ensure that the discussions consider not just whether there should be a public inquiry, but the reservations and concerns of those victims about the immediate support that they received after the event and the compensation arrangements?

John Reid: On the compensation arrangements, I am aware of a potential contradiction. The events acted as a catalyst to a reconsideration of how to improve the compensation scheme, but, by precedent, compensation schemes are not retrospective. I know that that represents an incongruity and an apparent unfairness and so I am looking at the case of the July victims. It is an exceptional case, in my view, and I am considering whether something can be done exceptionally and what that might be. As I said, five days into the job I have not been able to fix every little issue that is in front of us, but I intend to do that.
	On the meetings with the victims' families, I want to be as open as possible with them. I am open to all suggestions, but I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the ultimate decision will rest with the families themselves. Some of them may or may not want to have others present. Some may want to ask some pretty pertinent questions. I have to take into account the wishes of the families, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Alan Beith: In his statement, the Home Secretary said that, prior to the bombings, capacity was being expanded as fast as the top management believed was organisationally possible. However, with hindsight the Committee was able to discover—from what had been done after the bombings—that there had been room to do more and to do it more quickly. Perhaps the caution was understandable, but more could have been done. Will he indicate that he and his colleagues will continue to support the current expansion and will he reflect on the very odd judgement of the Joint Intelligence Committee that suicide bombing would not become the norm in European attacks?

John Reid: I will reflect on both those points.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that no restrictions were placed on the access of the Intelligence and Security Committee to information, whether in the form of reports from the joint terrorism analysis centre or the Joint Intelligence Committee? That was also true of access to the heads of the agencies. It is a little unfortunate that, although the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) did not cast any doubt on the integrity of the members of the Committee, he sought to undermine the credibility of the conclusions that we arrived at and the material that we used. We had no restrictions placed on us. There were no no-go areas. I think that my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is why we were able to produce the conclusions that we did. They were closely related to the evidence that we examined.

John Reid: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance and I am sure that the House will be reassured, as well, because we are talking about something that complements and fortifies the independent status of the ISC.

Julie Kirkbride: The British security services do a difficult and dangerous job and, for obvious reasons, their courage and occasional sacrifices are not always publicly recognised. Will the Home Secretary join me in saying that, despite the fact that some modest details about the bombers were known to the Security Service, no blame whatsoever for what happened on the streets of London last year should be attached to that magnificent service?

John Reid: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I suppose that, for the country, what is more important is that the independent scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee has led to the same conclusions. I remind the House, as I did earlier, that, in extremely difficult circumstances, working against hugely difficult technological networks and a high level of threat, the security agencies and the police have not just protected us in general, but have specifically prevented quite a number of potential terrorist attacks. As I said earlier, I know of three since July last year. For that, we should be eternally grateful.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the tremendous police work that was undertaken in west Yorkshire following the atrocities. The Home Office has already made available an extra £1.6 million to cover some of the costs incurred. Will he view with equal favour the bid that has been submitted by west Yorkshire to establish a dedicated anti-terrorist unit and also the case for designating Leeds Bradford airport for security purposes?

John Reid: I am not aware of the particular proposals that my hon. Friend refers to, but I undertake to have a look at them.

Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary has spoken of the challenge of understanding radicalisation. May I draw his attention to the ISC report and the admission by the Metropolitan police that it was working on an out-of-date script when it came to understanding radicalisation? Does he agree that that is now a top priority? It is the most complex subject and there is no easy answer.

John Reid: Yes, I will agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we understand and empathise with the culture, background, feelings and emotions of many in the Muslim community. We thus rely on British citizens who are Muslims to assist us in that aim, as well as making it plain to all of them, in common with everyone else in this country, that the only way to make progress in a civilised, democratic society is through democracy.

David Winnick: In what I hope will be a completely non-polemical way, may I say to my right hon. Friend that in recognising that there will undoubtedly be further attempts at carrying out such mass murder and atrocities in our country, would it not be better to concentrate all our resources on security and policing—I know what he said in answer to several hon. Members—rather than going ahead at the moment with identity cards? The Government have said repeatedly that identity cards would not have prevented the atrocities of 7 July.

John Reid: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a huge and detailed interest in the matter over a long period. There is nothing—no degree of intelligence, or infinity of resources—that will allow human beings, however intelligent, with absolute certainty to predict or prevent attempts to commit atrocities of this nature. The question is whether some resources and instruments will help us better to prevent such atrocities. I must say to him that in the five days in which I have been in the Home Office, it has occurred to me, when going through the several big issues that I have looked at, that ID cards would indeed have prevented some of the problems that we face over deportations, in this case and in other areas. However, nothing will give an absolute guarantee that we can prevent such atrocities.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and, especially, the increase in the budgets, with a doubling for resilience and a specific increase in the police counter-intelligence budget, both inside and outside London. I note that the right hon. Gentleman says that the intelligence community is growing as fast as the senior management believes is organisationally possible, and we have heard several comments about resources. Will he continue to urge the senior management in the intelligence community to identify new and innovative ways to use the additional resources that I know will be made available, which we on these Benches would very much welcome?

John Reid: Yes, I will. I know that both C and the director general are prepared to examine innovative ways of expanding quickly, and so on. They are progressive and open in their flexibility in doing so. However, just as it is impossible for me to guarantee that no other terrorist attack will ever get through, it would be wrong of me to suggest that there can be some form of infinite expansion of our security and intelligence services when I know that the skills, training, aptitude, vetting and experience required to carry out the jobs is considerable. The process thus takes time, and without having the almighty prescience of knowing what might come in the next generation, we will always be up against those physical constraints. It is true to say that the security services and agencies have been given anything that they have asked for as a priority. However, of course, if there are other areas that they feel are absolutely essential, I will look at them.

Diane Abbott: Like most Londoners, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news of the 7/7 bombings, and how frightened I was until I knew that the people closest to me were safe. The news was especially shattering coming, as it did, the day after our triumph with the Olympics. Does the Home Secretary agree that any successful long-term counter-terrorism strategy must have a community cohesion strand? Will he give the House an assurance that the round-table meetings and work with the Muslim community that came after 7/7 will be followed through and that many of the important recommendations will be implemented?

John Reid: Yes. I not only agree with my hon. Friend, but agree strongly with her. The idea that the problems will be solved only by instruments of the state, or, internationally, by military power, is a sad delusion; worse, indeed, it is a terribly mistaken attitude. Domestically, the important thing will be to get a degree of understanding and mutual solidarity throughout the whole of our community in this country, including everyone who is British, from whatever background—including Scots, Welsh, Irish, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Muslim, Christian and non-religious people—because the dividing line is not between ethnic groups or civilisations, but between terrorism as an evil and every other set of values that has developed in the civilised world. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says.

Julian Lewis: I am sure that the Home Secretary will do well in his new position, although he probably regrets having to leave his job at Defence, which, I know, it was his lifetime's ambition to obtain. May I ask him to pay some attention to the question of the recruiters and indoctrinators in this country? They have the multiplier effect. He referred in his statement to the role of one of them, who is in jail. We know the difficulties of putting such people in jail, so when they are in jail, can they be excluded from being released halfway through their sentences?

John Reid: As a general response to what the hon. Gentleman says, I agree very much. Just as important as operational terrorists are those who train, inspire and guide operational terrorists. That is the mixed threat. I cannot, with my limited experience in the Home Office, give him any guarantees on sentencing policy—I think that I will be turning my mind to that next Monday afternoon—but I take the point that he makes.

Louise Ellman: It is quite clear that home-grown terrorists were operating in an international framework. Does the Home Secretary have any specific proposals to increase measures against terrorism internationally and to improve the scrutiny of what is happening in this country? Does he agree that no section of the community can use its opposition to British foreign policy, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, to come anywhere near to justifying mass murder?

John Reid: I very much agree, as I am sure that the whole House does, with my hon. Friend's second point. On her first point, international solidarity and action on borders, the transfer of intelligence and working together operationally are of increasing necessity not only inside the European Union, but with countries that are geographically far apart from the European Union. Those actions are especially important with countries that are largely composed of people of the Muslim religion or culture. In my previous job, in which, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) pointed out, I took an interest and enjoyed, I had a great deal of discussion with some of those countries and formed operational partnerships with them. I am sure that such work will benefit greatly those countries and us because the threat is common to us all. The threat starts off as justifying attacks on foreign soldiers and ends up, in attack theory, as blowing apart innocent Muslim women and children in the streets of Jordan or Iraq. The whole of civilisation is challenged by the threat and should unite against it.

Michael Gove: May I thank the Secretary of State for his dignified and informative statement? He will be aware from the ISC report that the tragic events of 7/7 followed years of failure, going back to before 1997, to appreciate the scale of the Islamist threat.
	In particular, this country operated a system—the covenant of security—under which terror propagandists were left at liberty, so that they and their potential recruits could be kept under watch. Given that one key terror propagandist under observation could abscond from his known home address, where he received housing benefit, and remain on the run for 10 months, does the Home Secretary not agree that a full public inquiry could do a great deal to address deep and systemic failings?

John Reid: I am not sure that the answer to what the hon. Gentleman calls systemic failure, which he illustrated with one case, is a public inquiry. Rather than willing the ends and not being prepared to will the means, the House needs the will to will the means. He urged us to take action against people who glorify terrorism, to undertake more competent operational investigations and to let people know about the threat, but I hope that as we do all those things, rather than accuse us of tub-thumping, over-egging the pudding or taking draconian measures against a threat, he and his colleagues will support us as we take the necessary measures to achieve the ends that he identified.

Dari Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement that the ISC report is factual and detailed, and is not a whitewash. It is important for the Committee that that statement is recorded, but it is even more important that the agencies back his statement. The report expressed concern that special branch is underfunded and does not have the capacity or capabilities required to deliver the right security and the investigatory responses required. Does his Department acknowledge that and, if so, what is it going to do about it?

John Reid: I undertake to look carefully at the points made by my hon. Friend, as we take these issues very seriously indeed. As an indication of that, and because of our feelings for the victims of 7 July, we have made a small but symbolic gesture, and every single Home Office Minister is present on the Front Bench today. I will continue to make sure that we look at the problem.

Shailesh Vara: The Foreign Secretary spoke about the need for effective international co-operation. Is he happy with the co-operation that we have received from other countries? If not, which countries require further work? And what is the Foreign Office doing to try to make communications much better?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have not yet occupied the post of Foreign Secretary—the Foreign Office is one of the few Departments about which I can make that categoric statement. On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I am not yet in a position to assess in which areas we wish to develop friendships and the exchange of information and intelligence, but my experience in the past few years, particularly in Defence, is that there is an increasing awareness among all countries of all backgrounds of the common threat that we all face. I have had useful discussions with many countries in the Gulf, and I have had the pleasure and privilege of long conversations with President Musharraf of Pakistan and others. There is a growing awareness, as I said earlier, that there is a threat not just to one of us but to all of us. It is not a clash between civilisations—it is a threat to civilisation.

Sadiq Khan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the candour he has displayed in more than an hour of answering questions. May I draw his attention to the Intelligence and Security Committee's conclusion that the radicalisation of British citizens was still not fully understood or properly taken into consideration by the intelligence community? Does he accept that criticism, and what do the Government intend to do to address that shortcoming?

John Reid: I can tell my hon. Friend that I accept that we have a great deal more to do. May I make the general point that part of the motivation of the four suicide bombers was a sense of injustice about the treatment of Islam throughout the world by the west? That is the starting point, but we need to go much further and appreciate what underlies that strength of feeling. None of that justifies suicide bombing—neither my hon. Friend nor anyone in the House is suggesting that it does—but the more that we understand one another and understand what motivates those people, including what shapes their development and the context of their beliefs, the better we can cope with the problem. That is why, in the aftermath of 7/7, we set in train, as I said earlier, short-term work, including a programme of ministerial visits to engage local communities. Many Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, are actively engaged in dialogue and action with faith communities. Whether we have reached the parts that we ought to reach is an open question, and that is something that I want to look at. I think, too, that it will be high on the agenda of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who places a strong emphasis on the matter. We shall try to make sure that that is an important aspect of the work that she carries out.

Susan Kramer: The Home Secretary rightly talked about the victims' families and the agony that they are going through, particularly given the publication of the report and the forthcoming anniversary. He will be aware that some of their anguish stems from their difficulty finding the injured on 7/7 and discovering which hospital they had been sent to. They tried to identify and reach their relatives, but they did not want to disrupt the emergency services in the process. I have previously raised the issue on the Floor of the House, and I have spoken about the campaign for Emily's boards, which provide a mechanism for communication. I have met officials from the Department of Health, but Home Office involvement is required. Our efforts to introduce that procedure are moving forward at a snail's pace. Can my right hon. Friend provide me with a point of contact in the Home Office so that we can try to progress a solution? I hope that there is not another atrocity in London or anywhere else in the UK but, if there is, families should not be exposed to that experience again.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Lady, and I urge her to pass on her thanks to her constituents, including the parents of a young victim who I believe, from discussions with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, is called Emily. I thank her for her proposal, as that is one of the lessons that we must learn. As I have said, I do not regard this as the exclusive preserve of any particular party. I shall give what support I can to identify someone to develop the proposal. The matter is not within the ambit of the Home Office, as it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but I undertake to look into it and to contact her.

Ben Wallace: Post-incident analysis and learning from our mistakes is a vital part of intelligence work. The House should not hold back from scrutinising the Government and the Committee's report on the event. Will the Home Secretary clarify something that remains unclear in the report and his previous answers? Were the two bombers, Tanweer and Khan, under surveillance at any stage in the lead-up to the incident and, if so, was that for years or months? I am not just talking about tracing their telephone calls. As a result of the report, will he undertake to consider whether we have the right balance between human intelligence—informers and people working with the community—and intelligence gathered purely from surveillance? A lack of human intelligence often results in our missing threats, as has been the case both at home and abroad in the past.

John Reid: I am asking for clarification of the details. My understanding was that there was not a sustained surveillance operation. Rather, the men were picked up as contacts of a primary target who was under surveillance. The answer that I have just been given partly corrects me and is partly indecipherable. It has obviously been written by one of our intelligence agencies! The reply that I gave the hon. Gentleman was my original understanding. If it transpires that there was systemic surveillance of the men for any prolonged period, I will write to him.

Philip Davies: I particularly welcome the part of the Home Secretary's statement in which he said how important it is that we engage all communities in British society. Does he agree that it is crucial that we all do much more to integrate all communities, particularly Muslims in west Yorkshire and the rest of the country, into the British culture and the British way of life, so that they do not feel such hatred towards us as a nation, and that we do much more to tackle the people who preach hatred about our country, and perhaps kick some of them out of the country? All of us need to tackle the culture of political correctness, which has done so much harm to the integration of people into British society.

John Reid: I agree strongly with the first point that the hon. Gentleman made. One of the great things about Britishness is the strength of unity that we get from our diversity. That has been true for centuries, and I speak as a Scot and a Brit. I want everyone to understand that that is part of being British, as is tolerance of the views of others. I therefore strongly support the positive side of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but if we are to be tolerant of the views of others, we must be rather less tolerant of those who are intolerant of others. That is the other side. As regards political correctness, I do not think I am qualified to pass judgment.

Points of Order

Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) notice. Last Thursday in the House he alleged that I had made an offer of a peerage to Peter Law. That is utterly and totally false. I never made any such offer, nor would I. Indeed, Peter Law himself, on a television programme in December last year, said that he had never received—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the ruling that the Speaker gave earlier today. He said, "I do not intend to allow any debate or points of order about the hon. Member's apology, still less about the substance of his allegation last week. That is a matter to be pursued elsewhere, if at all." I must abide by the Speaker's ruling.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with the point of order and that is the end of it.

Peter Hain: rose—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the main business.

Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with the point of order and I am not returning to it.

Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill
	 — 
	(Programme) (No. 2)

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 25th April 2006 (Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill
	(Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	We have had wide consensus on the Bill, both on the content and on the need to ensure that it reaches the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I thank the Opposition parties for their support for the Bill and for their willingness to meet representatives of the Housing Corporation and lenders in order to discuss the detail. Accordingly, I hope all Members will support the programme motion.

Peter Bone: On a Bill that will clearly go through the House fairly quickly, it seems strange that we should impose an unnecessary guillotine on the business of the House. The programme motion is unnecessary and should be rejected.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We had considerable discussion in Committee of a short Bill that enjoys widespread support in the House, both for its content, as I said, and because of the need for a speedy response from Parliament to the issue that has arisen for the Housing Corporation. The provisions are not the most dramatic, but they are extremely important to the Housing Corporation, the housing associations that it regulates, the lending community and, ultimately, the 2 million people who depend on social housing.
	In Committee we undertook extensive scrutiny of the details of the Bill and its underlying purpose. I shall summarise the conclusions of that debate. The Bill's purpose is simple. It gives the Housing Corporation a power of delegation from board to below-board level, either to a committee of the board or to officials, with retrospective effect. It also deems the corporation always to have had such a power, since it was founded in 1964. Over the past 40 years the board had been acting, in good faith, on the basis that it had an implied power of delegation, until it was discovered at the end of last year that the board did not have that express power of delegation.
	It was not just the corporation that thought it had such a power, but everyone else with an interest, including the Department, the lending community, housing associations and the residents of housing associations. When the Housing Corporation was created, it was common for public bodies and non-departmental public bodies not to be given an explicit power of delegation. At that time, powers of delegation were more readily taken to be implied. Since then, the majority of bodies set up without explicit powers have been wound up or have had their legislation modernised to confer such powers.
	That did not happen in the case of the Housing Corporation because of administrative oversight on a series of occasions. Hon. Members asked whether we were aware of any other NDPB being in the same predicament as the Housing Corporation, but we are not. As I assured the Committee, we have examined all the NDPBs that were responsible to the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I will need to confirm that any new non-departmental bodies that may arrive in the Department as a result of the change in the Department's responsibilities are similarly checked, in order to ensure that we have addressed the issue. We have contacted the Cabinet Office, which is co-ordinating further consideration of the matter across Government.
	Hon. Members will be aware that as soon as the issue for the Housing Corporation was discovered, we set about addressing the many decisions that have been taken, so as not to leave housing associations, the corporation and lenders in a state of limbo about previous decisions that had been delegated.
	The Opposition raised concerns on Second Reading and in Committee about the retrospective nature of the legislation and the fact that it will legitimise past decisions that the corporation board had delegated. We had an extensive discussion of retrospective legislation on Second Reading and in Committee. We are clear that the concerns expressed by hon. Members about retrospective legislation do not apply. The Bill does not seek to alter the rights of individuals to the benefit of some and the disadvantage of others, or seek to unravel previous transactions that were undertaken in good faith, with unforeseeable consequences. It does not attempt retrospectively to change people's understanding of the position that they are in; in fact, the converse is true. It seeks to restore what was thought to be the status quo and restores the parties to the position that they all considered, in good faith, they were in before the problem was discovered.

Peter Bone: On what evidence does the Minister conclude that all parties thought that way?

Yvette Cooper: We are certainly not aware of any that thought otherwise. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging me because he thinks that I am, so to speak, unreasonably presuming that all swans are white because I have never seen a black one, he is probably making a fair logical point. However, on the basis of the evidence that I have and the consideration that was given to the historical files, I am not aware that any of the many organisations that engage with the Housing Corporation considered that this implied power did not exist. Certainly, if any of the lenders had considered that that was a possibility, they would have raised it with us pretty quickly.
	As I made clear, the Bill restores to the Housing Corporation and to other stakeholders something that everyone previously thought already applied. It also ensures that they can move on, on a secure footing, in making decisions in future, and that they do not have to call a meeting of the board to consider a series of decisions that should sensibly be delegated either to sub-committees or to officers. It therefore allows the Housing Corporation to manage its business more effectively and efficiently and to take sensible decisions in exactly the same way as many other non-departmental public bodies. At an earlier stage of the Bill's passage, we discussed a range of other organisations and non-departmental public bodies that have similar powers to those that we are introducing for the Housing Corporation.
	We discussed in Standing Committee the kinds of delegated decisions that are involved. These are not merely decisions about the kinds of coffee and biscuits that are got in for meetings—they are about the statutory functions of the Housing Corporation. A series of different types of decisions is covered. Our main concern centred on consents under section 9 of the Housing Act 1996. It was important to ensure that those were covered by the ability to delegate. That section requires a registered social landlord to obtain the consent of the corporation for any disposal of land under section 8 of the Act. That includes the placing of charges by lenders as security against a loan and rule changes for RSLs. It is important to have certainty about such consents, as they have important implications for the future of social housing, new build and the levels at which housing associations can borrow. Legal advice assured us that, through provisions in the Land Registration Act 2002, housing associations could continue to borrow against their assets and regard their homes, which might have been transferred from another housing association, as their own, and could make decisions about the future on that basis.
	However, we were also advised that notwithstanding the existence of such other provisions, there remained a degree of legal uncertainty about the validity of the decisions of the corporation. We felt, given the extent of long-term investment in the social housing sector, that it was critical to ensure that that uncertainty could be addressed. It could, for example, have affected the ability of housing associations to borrow against their assets, the rate at which they could borrow, the draw-down of loans, and the confidence of lenders. We are all agreed across the House that we want to maintain confidence in the social housing sector in those long-term decisions.
	Another aspect that we covered was the status of regulatory decisions such as statutory appointments to the board of a registered social landlord. We wanted to ensure that those were also properly covered and that there was no uncertainty about them given the need to be able to regulate in the public interest. Similar concerns involved housing association registration and rule changes.
	In each of the areas where we have pursued this matter, it is possible to provide some legal comfort regarding rule changes that might be provided by other legislation such as the Land Registration Act and the Companies Act 1985. Nevertheless, it became clear that each of those provisions offered insufficient certainty and comfort, whether for the Housing Corporation itself, for the housing associations, for their lenders or, ultimately, for social housing residents, who would bear the consequences were that uncertainty not resolved and were there to be any difficulties in terms of lending decisions that might follow.
	There is wide-ranging consensus among the stakeholders, as well as in the Department and among hon. Members, on the need for the Bill and the need to respond relatively swiftly to the problem that has arisen for the Housing Corporation. We believe that the Bill is the only way to solve that problem. I thank all Members for their support and commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Gove: It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in this debate. It is also a particular pleasure to see the new Minister for Trade in his place on the Front Bench. I say that because this Bill is small and, some might argue, perfectly formed, in that it has attracted no amendments and comes to us in its original pristine form. It would therefore be natural for many to conclude that it was flawless from the beginning. Indeed, given the well-known attachment of the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to the Roman Catholic Church, one might even say that it had an immaculate conception.
	However, I would not like anyone to think that this brief measure has passed through the House without scrutiny, because several hon. Members made valuable comments on Second Reading and in Committee. I should like in particular to pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who is in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for St. Albans (Anne Main), for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). I think that in every case where there were local elections in the constituencies of those of my hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading, the Conservative party made gains—in some cases, sweeping gains. I would like to think that there was a direct causal connection between their commitment to extending social housing and Conservative success, but I suspect that other factors to do with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister may have played an even greater part in those results.
	While on the subject of Whitehall manoeuvres, I congratulate the Minister on retaining her portfolio. I would like to think that the Prime Minister was taking such a close interest in the passage of the Bill that he did not dare move the Minister during its passage lest it, or she, come to some harm—but I suspect that he may have had other things on his mind in the past week.
	As the Minister and the House will know, we have been happy, indeed eager, to assist the Government with this business, not only on the compassionate Conservative basis that we should help the vulnerable but because, as we outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, we think that the Bill is necessary and urgent. As the Minister made clear, it seeks only to correct an anomaly that came to light earlier this year. It will grant to the Housing Corporation the power to delegate that that body, and all independent observers, always believed that it had. It will regularise in law a state of affairs that has been ongoing for years, which everyone accepted and to which no one objected until an eagle-eyed lawyer discovered a technical breach in the corporation's constitution.
	At every stage of the legislative proceedings, the Minister has been helpful and to the point in explaining the need for the Bill. However, as hon. Members have raised certain questions during its passage, I should like briefly to explain why we believe that it passes the tests that qualify it for speedy transfer to the statute book. Any legislation should pass at least three tests: the test of necessity, the test of proportionality, and the test of consequentiality. First, is it necessary, or could we achieve this goal by other means? Secondly, is it proportionate, in that it does what it says on the tin, or does it carry within it additional measures beyond those required to achieve the desired effect? Finally, what consequences will its passage have on the broader legislative and administrative framework in which we operate? Does it create precedents, or will its operations have ramifications that have profound and unheralded consequences?
	As the Minister made clear, the Bill passes the necessity test. We all know that it is necessary to keep housing associations buoyant and effective and enable them to continue carrying out their superb job of providing social housing and acting as social enterprises. Their success has depended on their access to debt finance on competitive terms.
	As the Minister again made clear, lenders lend to housing associations because they have absolute security and first call on their assets. They have that security because of the section 9 consents that have been granted through prior legislation. In many cases, they were granted under delegated powers. If there is any uncertainty about the legality of the exercise of those powers, an element of risk is introduced. As we all know, introducing an element of risk into the lending process places a premium on loans. That means additional costs—for the taxpayer or housing associations or those in genuine need, who depend on social housing. We therefore share the Government's commitment to removing that risk, restoring certainty and helping those in need. That is why we believe that the Bill passes the necessity test.
	Let us consider the proportionality test. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made some telling points on Second Reading and in Committee when he asked whether it was disproportionate to introduce a measure to deal with something that the Housing Corporation could tackle through a retrospective consent. There are some attractions in his case. However, the best advice from all lawyers is that both the Housing Corporation and housing associations would be on a securer and more certain footing if primary legislation were passed.
	Given the speed with which the House has considered the measure, and that we now teeter on the precipice of seeing it on the statute book, it appears foolish to argue that there is any method other than the original course of speedy legislation to provide the security and certainty that lenders, the Housing Corporation and housing associations deserve. The Bill is, therefore, not only necessary but proportionate. At 22 lines long, it tries to do nothing more than address the specific anomaly. Some hon. Members suggested in Committee that it should be used to achieve other ends. The Minister was attentive to their concerns, and promised to revert to them by other means.
	Let us consider consequences. The Bill is narrowly and precisely drafted, so few consequences flow from it other than the rectification of the existing anomaly. As the Minister was gracious enough to point out, it raises a specific question. Do any other non-departmental public bodies in Whitehall have similar or related loopholes or lacunae in their constitutions? She gave us an absolute assurance that all the non-departmental public bodies under her Department as it was before the recent reshuffle were covered, and that she would consider all those that now come within her bailiwick. She also assured us that the Cabinet Office would examine all non-departmental public bodies throughout Whitehall.

Yvette Cooper: Let me clarify my assurance. We asked the Cabinet Office to examine the issue more widely. There may be, for example, non-departmental public bodies that it makes no sense to examine because they clearly have no need of such a delegated power, and so on. We await further consideration from the Cabinet Office about how the matter should progress; I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman the inaccurate impression that we are conducting a grand search of every measure if there are more appropriate methods of dealing with the matter.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that this is a light-touch process. However, it is important that we do not again find ourselves in the process in which we are currently engaged, of having to introduce a Bill to tackle an anomaly. I would therefore be grateful if she passed on to her colleagues in the Cabinet Office our request, on behalf of both Opposition parties, to write to us at an appropriate moment to inform us of their progress. I look forward to receiving that correspondence in due course.
	We can tell from the attendance in the Chamber that although everyone who was interested in the Bill took a keen and informed interest in it, most hon. Members wish only to secure its speedy passage. For that reason, I commend the Bill to my hon. Friends.

Daniel Rogerson: I thank the Minister for her consideration in sharing the thinking behind the Bill at an early stage with representatives of Opposition parties and for the way in which she took it speedily through Committee.
	I acknowledge the great contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), although he came a little unstuck in Committee when some Labour Back Benchers took exception to the proposal for an audit of non-departmental public bodies to ascertain whether there were further instances of assuming delegated powers that do not exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) first raised the matter on Second Reading. I am glad that the Minister has considered the matter in her previous Department and has undertaken to examine it following the reconfiguration of responsibilities.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Minister on facing down Labour Back Benchers? Does that not set the appropriate example—that those who exercise ministerial power should face down some of the more recalcitrant and Neanderthal elements on the Labour Benches to ensure that good advice from both Opposition parties is taken?

Daniel Rogerson: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. Perhaps it was the shortness of the Bill that encouraged hon. Members to go further afield in seeking points to raise in Committee.
	The Housing Act 1996 has been mentioned. During its passage, I was here as a student for a few weeks and had the honour to work for a week for Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House and serving on the Committee that considered the measure. Little did I know then that one day I would rise, as a Member of Parliament, to address a packed Chamber on this subject—and I am delighted to do so.
	The Bill is sensible. It acknowledges a change in practice that has emerged during the operation of the Housing Corporation and its sister bodies in devolved parts of the United Kingdom. When the Housing Corporation was established, delegation was far less common in public bodies. The Housing Corporation's work load and responsibilities have increased because of the shift from local authorities' provision of social housing to more provision by registered social landlords. The Government, like the previous Administration, have tried to encourage that. If that is to continue, it is crucial that delegation be allowed to continue to ensure that local consultations can take place and effective decision making can happen at the appropriate level. The anomaly should have been picked up earlier, but at least it is being tackled now. We are considering a sensible tidying-up measure to reflect the reality. My party supports it for that reason.
	Several hon. Members raised the concept of retrospective legislation. I agree that in principle the House takes a dim view of it. However, as the Minister said, the Bill is trying to secure decisions that have been made in the past, not to undermine them. It aims to increase confidence in the sector. If the Government want to pursue further private investment in social housing as opposed to public investment through local authorities, such confidence will be crucial. Confidence is also crucial for tenants who want the housing association from which they rent to be in a secure position to ensure that their tenancy remains secure.
	The Bill also covers the possibility that some of the delegated decisions may have been wrong. At the prompting of a Labour Back Bencher in Committee, the Minister was keen to correct any misapprehension that the Bill's retrospective nature would allow incorrect decisions to go unchallenged. I am glad that she could reassure us about that.
	The Bill will secure the confidence in the sector that is needed to ensure continued investment. For that reason, my party does not oppose it. We look forward to the Housing Corporation being able to continue with its functions effectively and positively.

Peter Bone: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and in particular to the fact that I am a member of Rockingham Forest housing association, in an unremunerated capacity.
	The Bill will go through the House unopposed today, but it represents a missed opportunity. As it progressed through its Second Reading and into Committee, events occurred and statements were made that changed the nature of the Bill. On Second Reading, it appeared that the main purpose of the retrospective part of the Bill was to address concerns about disposals, where housing associations had disposed of properties or, perhaps more importantly, where they had granted charges on properties. Subsequently, however, it transpired that a general consent under the terms of the Housing Act 1996 would have been sufficient to address that problem. Even if there were no consent, lawyers were of the opinion that the transactions would still be valid.
	In Committee, however, it became apparent that other matters, rather than the disposals, were the reason for the retrospective legislation. The Minister was kind enough to tell us about some of them. One involved the registration of housing associations. It strikes me that the registration of a housing association should never be delegated, and that the decision should always be taken at board level. I am therefore unhappy about granting retrospective legislation in relation to a matter that should always be dealt with at board level.
	One hon. Member made the powerful point in Committee that giving wholesale retrospection to everything that had been approved through delegated responsibility could legitimise decisions that were wholly unacceptable. The Minister gave us an assurance that that would not be the case, but it was not clear on what basis she could give that assurance. Perhaps I missed something there, and I hope that that matter can be clarified.
	The intention seems to be to rush a Bill through Parliament because we fear that lenders will object if we do not. In practical terms, however, I do not think that they would. I see no reason for the transactions that have already occurred to be challenged, as they are established as charges with the Land Registry and the rates of interest have been agreed. I find it incredible that any lender would go back and ask for a higher interest rate just because some lawyer in a seminar thought that he had spotted something wrong in the primary legislation.
	The problem is that the primary legislation did require the board to make those decisions, and in all the intervening years, no one thought that the board should not do so. It might appear to the layman that the board would have to look into every detail and work out every fine part of any disposal. What actually happens is that the housing association does all that work. It does all the investigation and due diligence, then sends the request to the Housing Corporation. I am unaware of the Housing Corporation having rejected any such request. The purpose of the Housing Corporation is to regulate housing associations, not to be involved in a great deal of paperwork. So I see no practical disadvantage in the retrospection.
	The Bill has missed an opportunity; it could have been much better. In addition to covering all the problems that we addressing, it could have dealt with the role of the Housing Corporation. Why are we paying £40-odd million a year for an organisation to rubber-stamp decisions that are made, very diligently, by housing associations? Would this not have been an opportunity to introduce new legislation to remove that requirement, save the taxpayer a great deal of money and improve the Housing Corporation's efficiency?
	It is possible that if the fault had been discovered in a seminar in a few weeks' time we would not have had to discuss the matter, because the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would have removed the necessity to do so. I am grateful that it is being introduced now.
	The Minister was very kind and tolerant in Committee, but I believe that she might wish that the Bill had been delayed slightly. In nine days' time, the consultation on whether the Housing Corporation should merge with English Partnerships will end. We shall introduce a whole lot of primary legislation shortly anyway. Why did we not wait until then to clear up this little anomaly? In practical terms, nothing would have happened—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading, we discuss what is actually in the Bill, rather than what might have been.

Peter Bone: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did bring those matters up in Committee.
	The Bill will require the board to delegate to individual officers or sub-committees decisions on the disposal—and registration, would you believe?—of housing associations. I find it extraordinary that we are giving the Housing Corporation the right to appoint an officer to approve and register a housing association. Surely the original Act of Parliament was designed to make the board make that decision. With all due respect to the directors involved, I do not think that they are particularly overworked. I understand that they have been meeting once a week to deal with business under the present rules, and something like £250,000 of taxpayers' money is paid to them each year. So the additional responsibility would not represent a great strain.
	The Bill represents a missed opportunity. I understand totally why the Government have introduced it, but legislation introduced in haste and involving retrospection is normally either wrong or unnecessary.

Yvette Cooper: We have had a good Third Reading debate and, with the leave of the House, I shall reply to some of the points that have been raised.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has raised today many of the points that he made in Committee. I know that he would have preferred us to wait for another opportunity to introduce the legislation. However, after extensive discussions with the Housing Corporation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and other stakeholders, it became clear that it would be inappropriate for us to wait any longer, as the uncertainty was giving rise to significant concerns, especially among lenders, about the retrospective decisions. We did not want that uncertainty and anxiety among lenders to have an impact on the day-to-day decisions on the draw-down of loans or the rate at which housing associations can borrow, for example. Such uncertainty could have a serious impact on the viability of those decisions, should those problems start to escalate.
	We are carrying out a consultation on the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships, but we have not made any decisions at this stage on the right way forward. Any further legislation in that area could therefore still be some way off—if it is to happen at all—and it would be inappropriate to leave the Housing Corporation, and those who depend on social housing held by housing associations, in a state of uncertainty.
	We have addressed all the different points that have been raised during our debates, either in detailed briefing sessions for hon. Members or in Committee. On that basis I commend the Bill to the House, and speed its passage to the other place.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Confident Consumers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McCartney.]

Ian McCartney: The last time I spoke in the House, some three years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were in the chair. Let me say welcome back.
	Members of the House may be aware that this is my first undertaking on the Floor of the House since taking up my new role in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office. These have been a few busy days. I am currently juggling some of my previous undertakings as Minister without Portfolio with my Foreign Office responsibilities, plus sections of the briefs of three previous DTI Ministers. I feel that I have moved from being the Minister without Portfolio to the Minister with all portfolios. It is pretty hectic. You might say I am becoming the Minister for Open All Hours.
	Let me put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) who puts his heart and soul into everything he does. This Government's proud record on consumer action is in large part down to his passion, commitment, drive and dedication. I wish him the very best in his new role in the Home Office.
	I have had a long-term interest in consumer affairs, both in opposition and government. In opposition, I was involved in the campaign to prevent deaths caused by dangerous foam furniture. The current chairman of the Conservative party was the then Minister, and I give him credit for the action that he took jointly with me, which has led to some 10,000 lives being saved since the introduction of the legislation. New legislation was also introduced, with the help of a former Conservative Member for York who lost his seat in 1997—it is still a Labour constituency—to ensure that smoke alarms were fitted in all new property. It also required that all old property for rehabilitation had to have such alarms fitted. Local authorities up and down the country have spent tens of millions of pounds, with Government support, to ensure that all houses have smoke alarms fitted. That legislation has also saved many lives since its introduction.

Peter Bone: The Minister makes a powerful point. Do the Government intend to extend prevention by providing sprinklers in all new schools?

Ian McCartney: I understand that the Department for Education and Skills is consulting on that. Also, one of the key elements of the fire service review is a preventive strategy whereby fire services work with local communities, community groups, local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors to improve fire prevention and knowledge of it.
	Both in opposition and government, I ran the campaign for the regulation of the security industry. The regulation of security companies operating in pubs, clubs and shops, and in the private and public sector, has resulted in new training for security staff and has led to many improvements. It has tackled organised crime's attempts to infiltrate a legitimate industry, rooting out dangerous and violent criminals who were a direct risk to actual or potential customers. It has ensured that people have a career structure, are better trained and have an opportunity to work in a good industry, and it has protected good companies from cowboys. Sadly, the Conservatives, for 10 years in government, refused to support the campaign.
	The Government's commitment to consumers is clear. We have a proud record of providing greater protection for consumers, appropriate regulation for business and tough action against rogues who bully and rip off some of the most vulnerable in society. Today, I want to set out how we take that work to the next level. Before I do so, let me make clear Labour's manifesto commitment that we will
	"continue to work to protect the rights of consumers".
	It is a matter of record that the Conservative party proposed at the last election to axe 80 per cent. of the staff in the DTI, the very Department that deals with consumer affairs. It was not one of that party's greater ideas. It is odds-on that we will see a flip-flop on the matter before too long.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) is here today, and it was not until I saw him come into the Chamber that I realised that he would be answering for the Opposition. I notice that he has said a lot to the Federation of Small Businesses. He said:
	"We need to have a radical rethink about this"—
	the DTI—
	"as far as I am concerned all options are on the table, including the abolition of the DTI."
	That was in March 2006. My worry was that he went on to say, after questioning that
	"the SBS is one of those things that is very good at Westminster or Whitehall level but means diddly squat to someone trying to run a shop in the real world. "
	The Small Business Service was established because small business asked us to do it. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment has seen growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in the economy at all levels. Under the Conservatives, a business failed every two minutes.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I will give way, but are you going to withdraw your policy on abolishing the DTI?  [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the Minister is a little rusty at the Dispatch Box, but if he casts his mind back, he will remember that we use different terminology when addressing each other in the House.

Robert Smith: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and to his new portfolio. I just wanted to make it clear that our policy was to highlight consumers by creating a separate department for consumer affairs. At the moment, the concern is that the Department of Trade and Industry is there to stand up for consumers and be the voice of business, so there is a danger that it is both poacher and gamekeeper. By separating the two roles, we would create a more powerful voice for the consumer at the heart of government.

Ian McCartney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will get some oil on the old bones by the end of this debate. I thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for his explanation. I have heard of people getting their excuses in first, but the truth is that he did want to abolish it all and did not give any commitment at the time. Since then, the Liberal Democrats have done a flip-flop, but they are not the only party to do those.
	The Government are committed to a consumer and competition regime that is fair to consumers and business. We take seriously our responsibility to help the most vulnerable consumers in the market and have set ourselves a target of raising our consumer regime to the level of the world's best by 2008. Some of our more recent initiatives will provide valuable assistance to the most financially disadvantaged in society, including extra funding for debt advice and tackling the menace of loan sharks. I shall explain those schemes further later.
	The Government remain committed, as we have always said, to a system of competitive markets, with the pressure to retain custom as a powerful incentive on business to be efficient and act with integrity and responsibility. Companies that thrive in a competitive market are those that give their customers what they want. Those companies that do not do so will struggle to stay in the market. Confident, empowered consumers must be key to the success of competitive markets. That confidence helps drive markets. Consumers who are confident have the right information to know how to spot a good deal, have the confidence to know when they are being ripped off, and are confident that they are backed up by enforcers with the power to protect them from crooks and dodgy dealers.
	We are undertaking several major initiatives designed to create those confident consumers. Last year, we published a strategy for empowering consumers, and I am pleased to report that we have made significant progress in meeting many of our objectives. Chief among those successes have been the establishment of the Consumer Direct helpline, the announcement of proposals to strengthen and streamline consumer advocacy and the introduction of the Consumer Credit Act.

Paul Truswell: For Consumer Direct, which is a splendid initiative on which the Government should be congratulated, West Yorkshire had one of the pilot schemes, which has proved successful and has been rolled out nationally. I know that my right hon. Friend will want to achieve value for money in relation to the number of calls fielded by Consumer Direct, but will he also consider the quality of the response given, and not solely the number of calls made? In West Yorkshire, the service has a high satisfaction rate even though it might not be hitting the desired level of calls.

Ian McCartney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I visit the Yorkshire and Humberside region in the next few months, I would be happy for him to join me in looking at Consumer Direct. I shall set out some of the facts to which he has alluded, which are important.
	We will need to ensure that Consumer Direct is not just value for money but gives appropriate advice. Let me describe some of the things that it has done in that regard. Consumer Direct has handled nearly 1.5 million calls since its launch. It currently receives 25,000 calls per week across England, Scotland and Wales. I can list the five most common complaints from consumers in 2005: 42 per cent. concerned defective goods, 17.8 per cent. concerned sub-standard service, 8 per cent. concerned misleading claims, 6.6 per cent. concerned delivery, collection and repairs and 3.7 per cent. concerned prices. One of the products that attracted most complaints was the second-hand car. Some things never change.
	People clearly like Consumer Direct. A recent customer satisfaction survey reported that 87 per cent. of callers were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. Eight out of 10 callers now feel confident about dealing with similar problems should they occur in future. Because of Consumer Direct, an extra 350,000 people will have access to clear practical advice this year. That means total benefits to consumers through advice on sorting out their problems—for example, money saved on repairs and replacements and through refunds—of at least £135 million.
	As well as educating consumers and giving them information, we are trying to improve consumer advocacy. That is why earlier in the year we announced plans to set up a new consumer body called "consumer voice" to bring together the National Consumer Council and some sectoral consumer bodies, including Energywatch and Postwatch, to represent the interests of consumers across markets and to offer the best possible consumer protection.
	We have also proposed new ombudsman schemes in energy and postal services to deal with consumer complaints when companies have not provided satisfactory resolution, and to provide redress where necessary. The new schemes will be able to enforce the resolution of consumer complaints on companies, and provide compensation. That means that service providers will need to take proper responsibility for resolving consumer complaints. An ombudsman scheme that charges companies per complaint will provide directive incentives for companies to do that. Such schemes already operate in the telecoms and financial services sectors, and we want to build on that good practice and extend it to other sectors.

Robert Smith: The Minister said that consumer voice would act as an advocate for the consumer. Will it be an advocate for the consumer in general, or will it be able to advocate in specific complaints on behalf of the individual?

Ian McCartney: It will provide general advice and assistance. I shall explain later how the regime will develop in a coherent way. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford to keep them in touch with developments, because I do not consider this to be a partisan issue. That sounds good coming from me, does it not? I may regret having said it.

Peter Bone: Many people come to see me in my constituency about consumer problems, but they also visit the citizens advice bureau, which helps them greatly. Are the Government planning to fund local citizens advice bureaux directly?

Ian McCartney: In a few moments I shall give some good news about citizens advice bureaux. First, however, I have good news about the energy sector. Anticipating what would be done by other sectors, the energy regulator, Ofgem, has asked energy suppliers to appoint an ombudsman on billing complaints by July, and I know that the sector is working hard to achieve that. It must be borne in mind that existing consumer bodies such as Energywatch cannot—I repeat, cannot—decide on complaints or enforce redress for consumers. Ombudsman decisions are binding on companies but not on consumers, who can pursue their claims through other means if they wish. Ombudsman schemes are free to consumers: the companies pay the costs.
	Our plans were subject to consultation earlier this year. We expect to announce the outcome of that consultation, and the details of how we intend to implement our proposals, in July. We will need primary legislation, and if that is passed, it may be possible to introduce the first changes towards the end of 2007. When I know more, I shall write to hon. Members.
	As I said earlier, we have worked hard to establish better protection for consumers. Following the recent introduction of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, millions will enjoy greater protection when borrowing money. More than 74 million credit cards were issued by the end of 2004—the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) probably owns half of them—and about 50 per cent. of households have at least one credit agreement. The new Act constitutes the biggest overhaul of credit legislation since 1974 in relation to both rights and redress. It also changes the licensing of consumer credit businesses, and introduces new powers to drive undesirable elements out of the market.
	We shall implement the new Act in stages over the next two years. Consumers will then be able to take complaints about lenders to the financial ombudsman service, challenge unfair credit agreements in court and receive more information about the state of their accounts, which will help them to identify potential problems before it is too late.

Mark Prisk: The Minister's predecessor generously ensured that all the principal political parties could meet the Association for Payment Clearing Services regularly, particularly to discuss the Consumer Credit Bill, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to apply pressure for the changes that we felt were important. Does the new Minister intend to continue that arrangement?

Ian McCartney: As a former chairman of the Labour party, I am all for consensus with the Opposition. On this and other issues, when I think it appropriate for people to work together—when they need and want to work together—I shall be found to be most accommodating. I am strongly in favour of access to both Labour Back Benchers and Opposition parties. That is how we operated in the Department of Trade and Industry before. We did not always agree, but people could not say that they did not have access to me. I think that that was the right answer to give the hon. Gentleman. If not, I shall be given a black eye by my officials later.
	In addition to our objective of giving greater protection, another objective is to minimise the number of people who become over-indebted as well as to improving support for those who do. Credit is greater for those who can afford to repay it, but inevitably some get into financial difficulty and become over-indebted, often as an result of the unexpected events that life throws up such as divorce, redundancy and serious illness.
	The impact of over-indebtedness on individuals and their families can be terrible. We aim to minimise the number of people who become over-indebted, as well as improving support for those who do get into difficulty. To that end we are funding, jointly with industry and other Departments, the National Debtline telephone advice service. We are also providing £45 million in a two-year programme to fund face-to-face debt advice, helping tens of thousands of families to tackle debt.
	The funds will pay for 500 new debt advisers to help people to get their debts under control. It will fulfil the Government's commitment to achieve a step change in the availability of debt advice. It will focus particularly on the financially excluded, who are most in need of such advice.
	About £16 million will go to citizens advice projects, about £7 million to other voluntary sector advice agencies, and the remaining £22 million to partnership projects involving both Citizens Advice and other advice agencies. Citizens Advice chief executive David Harks has said:
	"We are absolutely thrilled by this news, which represents a real vote of confidence in the debt advice already done by the CAB network, and means that a new generation of debt advisers will be able to help tens of thousands more people overcome serious debt problems."
	Steve Johnson, chief executive of AdviceUK, gave a similar endorsement of the proposals that I have just outlined.
	I mentioned earlier the Government's commitment to tackling loan sharks. It is often some of the most vulnerable and excluded who fall prey to these illegal money-lenders, so we are funding pilot projects in Birmingham and Glasgow to investigate the impact of strong enforcement against illegal moneylenders. We have invested £2.6 million over two years in the project, and both pilots are performing well. Three high-profile prosecutions have been secured in the midlands, and more are in the pipeline both there and in Scotland.

Richard Burden: I certainly welcome the Birmingham pilot. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of Mr. Alan McNally, who preyed on many people in my constituency and who, fortunately, has been prosecuted as a result. It is important to make an example of such people. It is also really important to highlight these cases as a warning to others, and so that they can act as a back-stop to the debt advice schemes that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

Ian McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. My constituency, like his, has been bedevilled by illegal loan sharks who terrorise individuals and communities. They have no place in our communities or on our streets and doorsteps. Such prosecutions and subsequent ones will send the clear message that there is no hiding place for these people, who inflict misery on families and communities, particularly the elderly and other vulnerable people.
	Prosecutions aside, the teams are preventing illegal moneylenders from operating by generating publicity for their work. They are demonstrating that loan sharks can, and will, be prosecuted, and directing victims towards seeking money advice, and towards third-sector lenders such as credit unions. Credit unions are an important means of accessing affordable credit. One of my first actions in my new role was to sign off legislation that will help the Treasury in its plan to encourage the growth of credit unions, so that they can offer loans to a broader range of people.
	I turn to the unfair commercial practices directive. The Government are committed to simplifying regulations in order to provide effective protection for consumers. That is why we will introduce into the UK regime—through the implementation of this directive—a general duty not to trade unfairly. That will assist us in tackling aggressive doorstep selling; scams requiring competition "winners" to call premium-rate numbers; bogus closing-down sales; the advertising of unavailable products at low prices to attract consumers, in order to then sell them higher-price goods; and false claims that consumers will get a better deal if they sign up immediately, to prevent them from buying elsewhere. We have already consulted business and consumers on how to implement this new law, and we will publish our response before the summer. We aim to introduce this legislation next year.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend is displaying his customary generosity in giving way. Many of the scams that he has just described are perpetrated by fraudsters who use accommodation addresses provided by mailing companies. Such an address often proves to be just one of many post-boxes at a particular, sometimes prestigious location. A couple of weeks ago, I had an Adjournment debate on this issue. The then Minister for Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), was so impressed that he invited me to meet him and his officials to discuss the issue, and to bring trading standards officers with me. Given that my hon. Friend has been shuffled off to another Government coil, and that, essentially, this is a consumer protection issue, will my right hon. Friend pick up the baton and meet me and my posse of trading standards officers?

Ian McCartney: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his trading standards posse. I have not read his Adjournment debate, but I will put it in my red box—there is a name to drop—for this weekend. The problem that he refers to is a genuine one. I have visited some of these posh addresses, a number of which are in the City of London. Often, there is a very nice office full of display cabinets, all of which are locked. They contain the records of scam companies that every day throughout Britain are scamming pensioners and other vulnerable people and those who are unsure of their rights. Trading standards officers write to, or visit, the posh addresses given. The records are filed, and that is the last than anyone sees of them. These companies know that they are operating in this way. Those looking after such records know that such schemes are scams, and they are making a living out of doing so.
	We can do more, and should be doing more, to bring together all the enforcement bodies—trading standards officers, the police and others—to tackle the problem of dead postal addresses, which are a cover-up for illegal scams that cause misery in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, when they are closed down they often reappear. I will definitely meet my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and his delegation to discuss this issue. However, as the proposals that I have set out show, the Government are very much on the front foot in dealing with it.
	On enforcement, we are making great strides in developing policies to deal with those who flout the law and harm consumers. In the long term, competition punishes bad business; in the short term, rogue traders can undercut decent firms and dent consumer confidence in the market. We need to protect vulnerable consumers, the vast majority of decent businesses and the market itself by cracking down on these crooks. That means effective enforcement. The Department of Trade and Industry's company investigation branch is a powerful weapon in the fight against undesirables such as those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey is probably going to tell me about later.
	Investigations can lead to companies being wound up in the public interest. We are tackling scams targeting consumers and we work closely with trading standards, the Office of Fair Trading and the police. Last year, the Company Investigation Branch conducted 162 investigations and wound up 121 companies. A plethora of con artists, running charity scams, buy-to-let scams and dodgy ticket agencies, were targeted and have now been dealt with effectively.
	The amounts of money involved are staggering, but we have the power to put the firms out of business and we will be aggressive about doing so. Those targeted will include cowboy builders who cost homeowners thousands of pounds in shoddy and unnecessary building work, illegal doorstep salespeople, including those trying to sell financial and credit services, counterfeiters, and those who prey on the unsuspecting at car boot sales.

Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend also address the scams that target home workers, which still cause many problems for my constituents and others? People are promised thousands of pounds for work, but are required to pay up-front for meaningless kits and end up receiving nothing back. I introduced a private Member's Bill on the issue some years ago, which did not proceed, but there is still a problem and I ask my right hon. Friend to look into it.

Ian McCartney: I am happy to do so, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who deals with employment rights. The issues are covered by the legislation on the national minimum wage—[ Interruption.] My point is that we have a regulatory regime to protect home workers—

Michael Fabricant: That is a different matter.

Ian McCartney: I am trying to be fair to all concerned. We have a regime to combat such practices, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) is saying that people have found different ways to get round that regime, I am happy to address that, together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We have been very hot on regulatory matters around the minimum wage to ensure that we deal with any potential loopholes. I welcome the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and I will arrange for him to have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I will liaise with him.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: Why?

Michael Fabricant: I wish to be helpful. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) was talking about the scam where the supplier provides goods that the person has to pay for, on the understanding that when they have made those goods into some other item, they will be paid considerably more—in effect, for the value added. It is a complete scam, because people pay for the goods, do what is required to make the finished item and are paid nothing.

Ian McCartney: Well, it is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has been helpful to me. It is a business scam. We have dealt with the issue of the employment scam effectively and I have invited my hon. Friend to the Department so that we can consider the points that he makes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest.

Robert Smith: The Minister mentioned increasing enforcement and making it more effective. The Government accepted the Hampton report, which recommended bringing together various agencies into an organisation to be called the consumer and trading standards agency. The consultation on that proposal closed in October and I would like an update on the Government's intentions. As the report said, the new body
	"would need to dedicate significant resources to deliver a more coherent enforcement network and to improve performance in local authorities around the country."

Ian McCartney: I will be frank in saying that that issue has not crossed my desk, but I will get a reply for the hon. Gentleman and place it in the Library so all hon. Members present can read it—as long as the reply is sufficiently coherent in terms of the hon. Gentleman's request.
	Many hon. Members are interested in the Government's review of any further liberalisation of Sunday shopping laws. I attended a stakeholder conference on that issue yesterday and heard first hand both the economic evidence and the concerns of stakeholders. The current laws governing Sunday opening were put in place 12 years ago. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 restricts large shops in England and Wales from opening for more than six hours between 10 and 6, and prevents them from opening at all on Easter Sunday. Sunday shopping hours have never been restricted in Scotland, but in 2003 the Government passed the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act to ensure that Scottish shop workers have the same right to choose not to work on Sundays as shop workers in England and Wales. The Government also supported the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004 which ensures that large stores cannot open on Christmas day, no matter which day of the week Christmas falls on.
	The fact that the regulations have been around for 12 years does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, but it means that it is sensible for us to review them. According to the Office of Fair Trading, which recently announced that it was studying certain areas of online shopping, internet retail sales in the United Kingdom have increased by 350 per cent. in the past five years. Between January and April this year the Department for Trade and Industry asked informally for views and evidence on a possible extension of Sunday shopping hours. I have not yet seen the results, but I know that there is a wide range of opinions and some are exceedingly strongly held. This is the time for the Government to listen, so if I may, I shall say that I am shopping around for a few good ideas.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way again?

Ian McCartney: If I may, I shall finish the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on this and he may want to make a speech. I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold on for a second.
	I want to run through some of the strongly held views to illustrate the strength and complexity of the debate outside the Chamber. No one will agree with all of them. Indeed, some may not agree with any of them. For example, some consumers are keen to be able to shop at all hours of the day and night; others cannot imagine why they would ever want to do so. Some employees value the chance to work on Sundays; others say that Sunday opening has made their working life more difficult. Some people feel it is not the Government's place to regulate in this area; others would like to see Sunday protected as a day of rest by as much regulation as possible. Some religious groups feel either that it is wrong that shops open at all on Sundays or believe that family life benefits from having a day in the week without shopping and that it is extremely important to the social fabric of the country. Some have commented that the current rules under which many shops open and close at similar times—for example 10 am and 4 pm—cause congestion on the roads and say that it would be better to allow shops to decide for themselves when they close, which would be similar to the greater freedom now available to public houses.
	There is also a wealth of interest in the effects on small shops, as I have witnessed at first hand in the Makerfield constituency. Some people are worried that small shops near them might have to close; others think that it is good for small shops to have to raise their game to compete. Those and all other views expressed have to be weighed in the balance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will look at all the evidence that we have received so far. I want to ensure that consumer and labour policies are well informed, even if we have to recognise that there will never be an overall consensus.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I will give way, although the hon. Gentleman's point might be answered in a few seconds.

Michael Fabricant: I rise to point out that the Minister is right that the arguments are finely balanced. I was personally reassured that the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was inclining to the view that time has moved on. The Minister will be aware that 12 years ago the John Lewis partnership, which now employs 64,000 partners all of whom have a stake in the company, was dead against Sunday trading. Now they take a neutral view because they recognise that time has moved on. The arguments made 12 years ago may not be so relevant today.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for trying for the second time in 18 years to be friendly to me. I, too, must be neutral in this matter. I know that he is trying to entice me for the best of reasons to comment on this. The whole point of what I have been saying is that we are genuinely looking to have proper consultation. I shall come to that in a minute.
	We have not yet reached a conclusion on what should happen with regard to Sunday shopping hours. Given that I have only just arrived in the job, it will be no surprise that I have a generally open mind. No decision will be taken until I have assessed all the evidence and given appropriate advice to the Secretary of State. Secondly, we have promised that if we decide to continue to look at the question of changing the restrictions on Sunday shopping hours, there will be a formal consultation on the issue. We will keep that promise. We have said, and this remains the case, that the legislative process will be transparent; any changes will be part of a consumer Bill and subject to a full vote in the House.
	Thirdly, I give the House an absolute commitment that the special protection that shop workers have, allowing them to choose not to work on Sundays, is here to stay. The review will not include changing that protection because we are firmly committed to keeping it in place. Fourthly, I make it clear that the Government are committed to values of economic and social justice. Although the economic case is important, it is only one part of the equation. The Government support a greater work-life balance. We also support the regeneration of communities and we want to see small family businesses flourish. We also know that many large companies are at the forefront of community regeneration. Many have developed strong partnerships with unions and have taken a positive approach to campaigning to end age discrimination and allow older men and women to return to the labour market after many decades in which such people were not able to find work.
	Our consultations are on all aspects of relaxing the restrictions on Sunday shopping, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on the matter. We know that there is a social impact whatever we do, whether it is leaving the current arrangements in place, extending the restricted hours or complete deregulation. This is not about being pro-small business or anti-big business; it is about being pro all businesses but also pro the people who work in them. I am determined to try to strike the right balance.

Mark Prisk: The Minister says that he intends to make sure that there is a full and proper consultation. That is welcome. We understand that the Secretary of State has commissioned a study of the economic pros and cons. Will he undertake to ensure that that is published in order that we and the general public can see it as part of the consultation process?

Ian McCartney: The whole purpose of yesterday's stakeholder event was indeed that. This is about two things—the economic assumptions and the consultation document itself, which I am working on and hope to produce soon. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the timetable for that and its content when I have obtained agreement with my Secretary of State. I will also write to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), if that is helpful.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: I want to conclude. I know that the hon. Gentleman has started to like me a bit more, but I have taken a long time to put the Government's case and I want to give the two Front-Bench spokesmen time to speak. I hope that what I have said has been helpful. I have been generous in giving way. I have set out a lot of detail. I hope that hon. Members can see how I want to prosecute the job that I now have.
	Our vision is to deliver a consumer and competition regime that creates confident consumers—a regime that provides help for the most vulnerable. What I have outlined today is designed to create those confident consumers, to arm them with skills to spot a bargain, to give them knowledge to exercise their rights when they are wronged and above all to protect them with the full force of the law. If we continue to fulfil those ambitions, I am sure that we will have a consumer regime that is fit for the 21st century.
	I apologise again for the length of my speech, but I hope that in the length there has also been quality.

Mark Prisk: May I begin by concurring with the Minister's remarks about his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe)? He and I had a professional, courteous relationship, and I look forward to a similar relationship with this Minister. I welcome him to his new post. I say new, but, as he rightly highlighted, he was a Minister of State at the Department some nine years ago.
	It is true to say that neither the Minister nor I exactly tower over the Dispatch Box. I can recognise that, although I often feel that good things come in small packages. It has been unkindly suggested that many hon. Members look forward to him and me debating the working at height regulations.
	We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue today. The Minister set out the Government's stall. I have to say, without causing him too much concern that things are getting a little too consensual, that we welcome much of what he had to say. However, there are questions of principle and practice that I want to raise.
	Why do we need consumers to be confident? In this context, that means that they should be informed and empowered. I contend that confident consumers will encourage higher standards among manufacturers, shops and other service providers. Equally, informed consumers can better recognise and avoid the scams or frauds that the Minister described.
	Confident consumers also encourage innovation and good value simply by using their spending power wisely. Sectors such as information technology or the computer games industry show how consumer feedback directly affects future product development. That increases our competitiveness and productivity and so contributes to making this country the best place to do business. Sadly, there remains considerable room for improvement: in 1997, when the Minister was last in the Department, the UK was the world's fourth most competitive country, but it is now the 13th.
	Informed and empowered consumers are good for their own welfare and for the economy as a whole, but what do those qualities mean in practice? Informed consumers know what advice they need and where to get it. They understand the consequences of their purchasing decisions but, with new and more complex products and services entering the market each week, providing that information is increasingly difficult. Ironically, it is in the areas where the financial consequences are greatest—financial services, for example—that consumers are often least well placed to make informed decisions. Indeed, I recently hosted a seminar on consumer credit that looked at issues to do with financial exclusion and education. We also examined ways to ensure that consumers are enabled, rather than trapped, by the choices that they make.

David Drew: The Financial Services Authority is tasked with doing a lot of work in the area of consumer and financial education. I believe that the jury is still out on whether it has been effective, or whether its approach has been too laid back and complicated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good to know how much impact that work has had in schools? If younger people do not have the relevant knowledge, we will all be—to use the old expression—doomed.

Mark Prisk: I hate to admit that I am of the generation that understands the reference that the hon. Gentleman makes—but he is right that we need to establish the FSA's role in education. It has not been engaged in the process long, and some would say that it could face a conflict of interest in trying to be both regulator and educator. When the Government go ahead with the financial services consumer panel, it will be interesting to see what sort of relationship the panel has with the new advocacy bodies.
	Empowering customers cannot be achieved simply through education and information. Customers also need to have confidence that appropriate and convenient means of redress will be available and enforced, when that is justified. Clearly, there are many forms of redress to deal with the different harms that consumers can suffer, but they need to be accessible and effective.
	The Minister referred to the ombudsman system. It has worked well but, as expectations change, the standards of enforcement may need to change too. The central policy question has to do with how we create confident consumers. The responsibility must be shared between Government, business and consumers.
	It is the Government's role to ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting consumers—and especially the most vulnerable in our community, as the Minister rightly pointed out—and allowing business to trade without being handicapped by over-burdensome and often ill-considered regulation. The Government also have the responsibility to ensure open and competitive markets, in which business and consumers can operate. In addition, they should provide a legal framework that is clear, simple and easily understood, and put in place effective resolution and redress systems. Given the Government's ambition to make Britain among the best consumer regimes by 2008, is the Minister still confident that they will fulfil this target, and how far have they progressed to date?
	Business must also share in the responsibility. It is not, and should not be, the role of business alone to educate consumers, but I believe that it is clearly in the interests of reputable businesses to ensure that their customers are well educated and informed about their services and products. It is in their interest to be accessible to consumers, to make their offers clear and to be responsive to feedback and complaints. In fact, I would contend that that can be a source of genuine competitive advantage for businesses. The John Lewis Partnership, which was referred to earlier, is well known for its slogan, "Never knowingly undersold". That means that its customers can be confident that it will not be beaten on price. Recent showings suggest that the partnership is offering something that is well received by some customers.

Robert Smith: As in all things, if consumers are to be fully informed, they sometimes have to be careful. A company may be never knowingly undersold on the same product, but manufacturers produce many different models for different suppliers to allow a certain element of differential pricing for products that may not differ very much.

Mark Prisk: All of which generously leads me on to my third point. I believe that consumers themselves have a personal responsibility to take informed decisions. It is not for the Government to protect consumers who took rash decisions when they were in a position to have made an informed choice. It is right, in cases where information is available, to make a rational choice or decision, but consumers must face the consequences of their choice if they make it carelessly. In fact, if the truth be told, the distinction between Government, business and consumer may be partially false, for we are all consumers and we all have a responsibility to ensure that we are appropriately informed. The Government can, of course, help to ensure that the most vulnerable consumers are protected by clamping down on companies that use rogue practices. In the end, I still believe that the principle of caveat emptor should always remain the consumer's motto.
	Before I turn to the consultation that was mentioned earlier and deal with "consumer voice" and Consumer Direct, I would like to raise two specific issues with the Minister. First, he has had the pleasure of reading many papers this week, so he may be aware that we have been pressing for a national debate on the future of small shops. Promoting the health of our high streets is a classic example of how shared responsibility can work. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is a level playing field and that players within the market are not unfairly disadvantaged. That is why we welcome the Competition Commission's inquiry into the grocery market, so long as it is thorough and comprehensive. I am pleased to say that I have had a direct assurance from the commission that that will be the case.
	As the Minister and the House will know, allegations have been made of predatory pricing and unfair behaviour to suppliers. If they are proven, they must be exposed and dealt with properly. It is in the interest of retailers and consumers alike that those claims are investigated thoroughly because, in the end, if the final report produced after 18 months or two years is not trusted by the market, the danger is that we shall face calls for a fourth inquiry into the market. That would not be good for retailers, large or small, or for consumers.
	Equally, in addition to the role of the Government and business, it is the responsibility of small independent retailers to respond to changing consumer demand and to seek out and develop the new market. Most of them already do, but there is a need to encourage firms constantly to seek to improve and not to assume that the Government can always protect them from open competition.
	Consumers need to realise that they have a vital part to play in the shopping world. Many consumers rightly say that they value their small local shops. If they do, they have a responsibility towards them. After all, it is their spending power that can make the difference. They must recognise that if they genuinely value their local shops, they must use them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I have endorsed the excellent campaigns by the  Evening Standard and, more recently, by Friends of the Earth, which have encouraged people to use their local shops more.
	The second issue is the growing concern about instances of alleged chip and pin fraud. This week, we have heard that hundreds of customers at garage forecourts have had their details stolen as they paid for petrol using their chip cards and pin numbers. Those incidents highlight the need for customers to make sure that they do not allow the advent of new technology to lull them into a false sense of security—as the Home Office knows, no IT system is completely foolproof. However, it is vital that consumers have confidence that the systems they use are generally secure. Given the clear public interest, will the Minister tell the House what action his Department is taking to establish the nature of the problem, what steps might be taken to minimise it and how the industry intends to maintain consumer confidence in what is after all a relatively new scheme? In particular, does he intend to meet APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—to establish the facts? If not, I urge him to try to do so, although I appreciate that these are early days in his job.
	I turn to some of the Government's proposals to rationalise the process of consumer advice, advocacy and redress. In principle, there appear to be considerable benefits from such a move. However, there are a number of points on which we shall seek clarification and reassurance, not just today but as the legislation is debated and implemented. Indeed, the implementation timetable is one of the issues that concerns me.
	The Government have set out a timetable for consumer voice to be established as a shadow body by November 2007—the Minister alluded to that earlier—and to take up its full responsibilities by January 2009. Significant changes of that nature cannot and should not be rushed, but I would welcome, either today or when he has had the chance to consider them carefully, the Minister's views on the matter, especially on the measures that will be taken to avoid policy and management drift over what could be a three-year period as the existing system is phased out and the new one phased in. What arrangements will be made to ensure that staff are aware of the status of their employment so that they can concentrate properly on implementing the new scheme effectively? A distracted and unmotivated staff is in no one's interests.
	The Government hope that one result of a consolidated advocacy and redress system will be to deliver better value for money. Incidentally, I enjoyed the Minister's vociferous starter for 100 at the beginning of his speech and I look forward to similar exchanges of a partisan nature. On a non-partisan point, however, can he give me an assurance that the attempt to seek better value for money is not actually a cost-cutting exercise, and that there will be no net reduction in the resources dedicated to consumer support?
	As the Government contend in their document, the new joint association will be both large and powerful and will thus enhance the voice of the consumer in Government, which could prove helpful. However, there is a risk that other equally legitimate bodies could be marginalised in that policy development—for example, the Consumers Association and Citizens Advice, both of which are highly respected organisations. They have gained tremendous experience over the years and are trusted by the public. They perform a useful role and it will be important for the Government to make a clear commitment that such independent bodies are not crowded out by the Government's new, substantial advocacy body.
	What assurances can the Minister give me that the body will not prove overly dominant in both the advice and representation roles envisaged in the consultation document? Equally, it will be vital for the credibility of consumer voice that it is seen to be independent of, with the ability to dissent from, Government. Is the Minister satisfied that the structural arrangements proposed will provide that degree of impartiality and independence? The Government plan a range of options for the structure of consumer voice. Can the Minister give us an indication of their preferred option, and can he assure us that the views of all those consulted will be properly taken into account in reaching that conclusion?
	I think that the Minister alluded to this in his remarks, so I suspect that he will accept that an effective enforcement and sanctions system is only one of the ways in which responsible business practice can be ensured. Given the earlier comments about the Hampton review and the need to target energy on enforcement, what action will the Government take to encourage suppliers to manage complaints effectively, as well as to impose sanctions when they do not? After all, I think that carrots often prove more effective than sticks.
	I would also welcome the Minister's views on how consumer emergencies will be handled. If a utility company, for example, fails to make urgent repairs, principal redress seems to lie in an ombudsman system and will very often occur some months after the event. Frankly, that is of little help to the people affected. Last year, Energywatch dealt with 280,000 such problems. Does the Minister, like me, understand that there is a possible danger that those consumers will be simply stranded by the proposed new system, which will work very differently from the current system?
	Will the Minister offer further clarification about where responsibility for consumer education will lie? We touched on that issue earlier, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is, sadly, not in his place now, asked a question about it in the context of the financial services sector. What will be the role of consumer voice, given the existing role of the Office of Fair Trading? In particular, how will consumer voice co-ordinate its new role in educating consumers, which is anticipated by the Government, with the OFT's mandate to promote a "national consumer education strategy"?
	Informed and empowered consumers benefit us all. They can use their knowledge and spending power to get what is best for them and their families, and they are better able to avoid fraudsters and conmen. They can encourage both producers and retailers to raise their standards and businesses to innovate and respond to their needs. Where consumers recognise the wider social value of, for example, a healthy high street, they can support good local shops, which very often form the focus of both our rural and our urban communities. That is why effective competition and consumer laws are important to a modern economy.
	The Government have stated that their ambition is to create the best consumer regime by 2008. That is a good ambition, if it is tempered by a recognition that consumers' rights must be balanced with responsibilities and, frankly, that each of us—the Government, business and consumers—share those responsibilities. But effective consumer policy must also balance the rights of the consumer with a healthy attitude to vigorous but fair competition and a recognition that if we hamper business with unnecessary rules and regulations, none of our worthy ambitions can be realised.
	I look forward to hearing from the Minister—whether at the end of the debate or in writing—on the points I have made, and I certainly look forward to what I can see will be a lively debate, as the Bill is developed and presented to the House.

Robert Smith: I, too, welcome the debate as a chance to take forward the issue of consumers and the important role that empowering consumers can play in helping not only the individual but the economy, business and the general well-being of society. Creating confident consumers clearly not only needs informed consumers and fair competition, but needs consumers to have the tools to make use of the information—the numeracy and literacy skills and the understanding of risk—because what goes wrong with many products and what causes many problems for consumers is that the person who is doing the selling can take advantage of their misunderstanding of the risk profile of what is being sold. A good consumer regime will benefit business and allow good businesses to thrive.
	The Minister touched on the structure of the Department of Trade and Industry, and we still believe that a separate Department of consumer affairs would put the voice of the consumer very much at the heart of Government and separate out the Department's responsibilities for advocating the needs of business and consumers. In reply to my intervention, the Minister said that he would write further on the subject of the consumer and trading standards agency, but if the agency is to be effective it must be effectively resourced, and it must be brought together in a way that ensures that the sum of the parts is greater than that of the individual organisations that make it up.
	As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has made clear, the Competition Commission's welcome reinvestigation of supermarkets will help consumers by ensuring that there is a fair and level playing field for local shops. I reinforce the message that if the local shop is valued, it will be used. The shop will be there only if consumers are there to make use of it. Competition is one way in which consumers can benefit. The liberalisation of the car market and the opening up to competition of the sale of cars has improved the rights of consumers. They have benefited from price reductions and a more open market. Making sure that there is effective and open competition can often be the way to benefit consumers.
	Consumers can also ensure the delivery of other concerns. A consumer's decision is the sum of all sorts of different interests that they have when they go out to buy a product, such as the price and the benefit of the product to them. Consumers also quite often have a wider interest. The fair trade movement has shown that those who are concerned about the conditions of suppliers in less developed countries can influence behaviour through their consumption. However, they need to be informed. The Minister should reconsider the Government's decision to abandon the operating and financial review requirements of company law that would have forced companies to make sure that consumers had information on how they traded and operated. That would have meant that the market was more informed. As he recognises, informed consumers are able to make those decisions. If consumers do not have all the facts to enable them to assert their views, they will miss out.
	I welcome the Consumer Direct approach, which means that the informed consumer knows where to go to access information to take up their case and to make their case more strongly. Clearly, that organisation is guiding many consumers to the right place to assert their rights. Many consumers are able to assert their own rights, but I am concerned about the "consumer voice" role. In certain specialist areas—particularly energy and the postal services—where complex nationalised monopolies have been regulated and privatised and complex markets are involved, we need to be careful about the loss of individual advocacy. The Government may want to reconsider to ensure that less informed consumers and vulnerable consumers, who cannot assert their own rights, do not lose out; I shall come back to the energy sector in that context. If consumers have to rely on an ombudsman scheme, they have to access that scheme. The great benefit of what Energywatch and Postwatch have done in the past is that they have taken up individual problems on behalf of consumers.
	We need to look at the effectiveness of delivery in a wide area of consumer concerns. The telephone preference service assists people who face unwanted calls. People register with that service. However, what is being done to deliver what those people want? People still get the calls, and then they make a complaint. Some of the top companies have 1,800 complaints against them, but still have not faced a fine for breaking the rules of the telephone preference service. Clearly, consumers are trying to make use of a service to assert their rights, but the Information Commissioner needs more effective powers and resources to deliver what the consumer wants from the telephone preference service.

Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the problem is resources, or sanctions?

Robert Smith: It is a mixture of both. The Information Commissioner's department is snowed under with freedom of information inquiries, so he may well have a resource problem. If he had effective resources, he might be able to make use of the sanctions and fines. However, as fines have not been levied, he might need more powers to make it easier to impose sanctions.
	I have a worry about the regulation of financial services. There have been attempts to protect consumers from buying products that are not suitable, or do not deliver what is expected, and to ensure that consumers are informed. However, as financial products become more effectively regulated, it is possible to link them more imaginatively to products that are less regulated. Financial products for buy-to-let might be well regulated, but the information that a person gets about the underlying property, such as its value and the likely expectations built into the product, might well be less regulated and effectively delivered.
	As the world becomes ever more complex, it is important that regulators are able to see beyond the part of a product that they are regulating and examine the underlying substance of what is being sold to the consumer so that consumers can make informed and effective decisions. We could, as a nanny state, prevent people from making their own choices, but we should not do that. If people want to expose themselves to high-risk property speculation, they should be able to do so, but they should do that in an informed way, with the knowledge that the underlying product is at risk.
	The Government have not only the role of enforcement and ensuring that the right regulations and systems are in place, but the fundamental role of setting an example through the way in which they deal with consumers. A classic example of the way in which the Government are setting a bad example is the Post Office card account. Consumers took out the account in good faith and the belief that it would be a permanent product. They did not know that behind the scenes the Department for Work and Pensions had always assumed that the accounts would come to an end in 2010. The Government preach to the private sector that they should treat customers in an open and transparent way, but they are setting a poor example.
	The Minister talked about the danger of over-indebtedness. The Government need to understand that many people use the card account specifically to avoid the risk of over-indebtedness. Many such people have a bank account for savings, but choose to use the card account for their regular budgeting, in part because they know that they are at absolutely no risk of being exposed to charges, or £20 or £30 letters from the bank to tell them that they are overdrawn. The preferable option would be to keep the card account, but if the Government are not going to, they must ensure that there is a Post Office product in place that offers the same protection from indebtedness as the card account.
	The Government could have given a lead to industry with the way in which they treated the ombudsman's report on pensions. However, given the way in which they rejected the report quickly and summarily, what kind of example did they set to the wider industry on how it should respond to an ombudsman service, which is the Government's preferred solution to ensure that there is effective dispute resolution?

Peter Bone: The Minister made the case for ombudsmen very clear. He said that an ombudsman would protect vulnerable people because they would not have to pay for the service or abide by it. He said that the big organisation would have to pay for the service and be bound by the decision. That would be great, but it does not happen with the parliamentary ombudsman.

Robert Smith: The Government seem to have two standards: one for business outside, and another for the way in which they act when consumers deal with Government Departments.
	Experiences in the energy sector throw up various aspects of the way in which consumers can influence and make decisions. Everyone says that it is a no-brainer that consumers will benefit from improving the insulation of their houses, yet we still find it difficult to promote conservation and energy efficiency. Perhaps that is because consumers do not necessarily have confidence in, or information about, the product, or because they do not trust those selling it. One may have a good solution, but unless the market is well informed and consumers are confident, one cannot deliver it. The market may not be the only means of delivering measures such as energy efficiency. Building regulations and minimum standards set by the Government are still important in delivering good-quality products to the market.
	As has been said, Energywatch offers an important advocacy service for individuals. It would be a great mistake, however, to assume that every individual has the skills and powers to make use of an ombudsman service. In the telecommunications sector, people must wait 12 weeks before being allowed access to the ombudsman, Otelo. If people are about to be cut off, that is far too long to wait to resolve the problem. Some of 87 per cent. of Energywatch's cases are dealt with within seven weeks, but under an ombudsman scheme there would be an additional five-week wait before the resolution process even began.
	It is extremely important that the Minister should look at the consultation to see whether the new regime can maintain an advocacy service for individuals and provide a more robust ombudsman scheme, following the initiative with Scottish and Southern Energy. If Energywatch receives a complaint from a consumer about Scottish and Southern, it works with the company to fast-track the complaint and refer it within two weeks. That is different from the traditional ombudsman's role, but it is a much faster way of resolving disputes.
	The role of citizens advice bureaux has been mentioned. The decoupling of the work on individual complaints from the role as a general advocate for the consumer could lead to a loss of touch with the coalface. Because Members of Parliament deal with individual cases, we can start to see patterns emerging. If we deal with a significant amount of Child Support Agency casework we realise that we cannot solve the problem by tackling the failure of bureaucracy—there is an underlying policy failure. Similarly, consumer advocates such as Energywatch, Postwatch and so on can build up a picture from the cases with which they deal and identify problems in the sector. They act as a general advocate, but their work is informed by individual experience. The Government must look at the way in which the consumer voice is heard so that the consumer experience is understood.

Mark Prisk: Given the strong role that the Government anticipate for the consumer voice and the development of policy, is it not equally important to set out the role of citizens advice bureaux, the Consumers Association and others in any legislation that is introduced, so that their detailed experience and on-the-ground contact is not lost in policy development?

Robert Smith: It is important to set out that role. If consumer voice informs policy making, it should not become a judge of its own advice. If it advocates a strategy that the Government take on board, but that strategy fails to deliver, it may not be the most effective advocate, given that its original advice will have been wrong. Someone who handles cases day to day will know whether the strategy is working, so their voice needs to be heard in the system. The Government must make sure that people who deal with individual cases have a strong voice that informs policy making. Finally, I welcome the concept of informed consumers as an important aspect of delivering fair competition and effective business. However, I reinforce my view that that cannot be delivered if we throw away effective advocacy for individuals who cannot pursue a case on their own.

Peter Bone: I draw the attention of the House to my declarations in the Register of Members' Interests, particularly as a director of AJWB Travel Ltd.
	It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who made some powerful points. I shall deal with some that he did not mention. The debate is entitled "Creating Confident Consumers" and we could probably discuss such an enormous subject until midnight. Introducing the debate, the Minister had a go at the Conservative manifesto, when he said that we would drastically cut back the Department of Trade and Industry. As I understand it, unless he has changed his mind, the Department's numbers are to be cut by 30 per cent. If we are trying to create confident consumers and increasing protection, will the Department have the resources to do it? Perhaps the Minister could deal with that when he winds up.
	We speak of consumer confidence as though it applied only to the private sector. Of course, it is equally important in the public sector, and that has not been discussed today. Children are perhaps the most vulnerable consumers. They are consumers of education, and they have the right to be confident that they are safe where they are being taught, yet the Minister could not give me an assurance that all future schools would be protected by sprinkler systems. That would protect consumers and build confidence. One of the problems may be that the Government are prepared to undertake prevention, but not reaction. However, the topic may not be entirely germane to the debate.

Ian McCartney: When you raised the point, I made it clear that the matter was out to consultation. I will read my remarks carefully, and if I have misled the hon. Gentleman I will write to him. I thought I had made it clear that we were trying to meet that point and were examining the matter.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I understand the point, but I also understand that if the Government introduce extra prevention, they propose to withdraw reaction by cutting back on the fire service. That concerns me, and I look forward to the outcome of the consultation.
	The Minister also spoke of introducing legislation for the security industry to protect consumers, which I welcome. The problem is that the Government did not provide the resources or allow time to register people in the security industry, so for some months, the industry has been in flux. People who should be registered are not registered, and people who are acting illegally should be closed down. It is rather a mess. When consumer legislation is introduced, I urge that enough time should be allowed for the right regulation to be enforced and that it is not rushed through.
	Creating confident consumers in the health service is particularly important. Back in November, the Prime Minister gave a guarantee to consumers of the health service that nobody would have to wait more than six months for an in-patient operation at an NHS hospital. The Government failed to meet that in November, December, January and February. The number of people waiting more than six months is growing.
	If we are to create consumer confidence in the NHS, should there not be some quick remedy for those who wait more than six months, when there is a guarantee—not a target or an aspiration, but a guarantee—that they will not have to wait more than six months? Should there not be a method whereby they can be transferred to another hospital for an immediate operation, given compensation or treated in the private sector? If we expect companies in the private sector to meet all the regulations, why do we not expect the Government to do so?
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine spoke about citizens advice bureaux. I am told by citizens advice bureaux in my constituency—I expect hon. Members across the country hear the same comments—that they are dealing with more and more debt management problems. Unfortunately, some of those are coming about because vulnerable people have been given tax credits, have found that they have been overpaid and are being asked to pay back thousands of pounds. I have had people in my constituency office in tears, saying, "I can't possibly meet these bills—what are my options? Am I going to go bankrupt? I can't sleep. My marriage is on the line." Those problems are being sorted out by local citizens advice bureaux. I was horrified to learn that no Government money goes directly to them, but only to the national organisation. If the Minister wants to improve debt management, and I think that he genuinely does, I am not sure that creating a semi-state advice centre is the way forward. That money should be given directly to local citizens advice bureaux, which have the great advantage of being seen to be completely independent of the state and of business, and will give impartial advice. That would represent a change in attitude from the Government, who always seem to think that they can impose from the top, whereas this would be a great solution from the bottom upwards.
	The Minister is right to say that ombudsmen have a significant role to play in protecting vulnerable people if the banks do someone wrong, as they often do. The process may be lengthy and frustrating, but it does not cost anything, and ultimately the bank is bound by it but the person is not—they can still challenge the ombudsman's decision through the court if they are not happy with it.
	I fail to see why the Government cannot accept that principle when it comes to themselves. They are the only organisation—the most powerful organisation in the land—who, when they are found guilty of maladministration, say, "Sorry, but we don't agree; we're not guilty" I am sure that half the time banks do not think that they are guilty of maladministration, but they still have to pay up. If the Minister could go back and say, "We've been unfair to these pensioners," I think that the country would say, "This Labour Government are beginning to listen." However, I fear that that will not happen.
	I should like to talk mainly about the travel industry, which I have been involved in for several years. When it first developed, many years ago, people had to pay a fortune to go abroad, and only the rich travelled. Then came the invention of the package holiday, Freddie Laker and the Association of British Travel Agents. People went into their local travel agent, looked at brochures, and picked a holiday. If the holiday company went bust, they were covered either by ABTA or the ATOL—air travel organiser's licence—system. Everybody had consumer confidence, and in a highly competitive industry, no consumer ever lost out.
	Now, the travel industry has moved on. People do not necessarily go to their local travel agent because they are able to book online or by telephone. A system called dynamic packaging has been introduced, whereby people do not book a package holiday but book the airline, hotel and car separately. It is also called split contracting. The problem with that system is that if any provider of the travel arrangements goes bust, the consumer is most unlikely to be covered by protection. If they have booked online, they are not covered in any form whatsoever. They will have an element of protection if they happen to have paid by credit card, but most people do not like to do that because they have to pay a fee on top of the cost of the holiday. If a major low-cost airline were to go bust, many thousands of people would lose out.
	The waters have been muddied even further by the European Union. There is an EU directive on travel that is so incomprehensible that I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry does not understand it, let alone local travel agents and consumers. All the EU has done is confuse matters. People could book a holiday to America on an American airline, which might fly under chapter 11 protection. In other words, it might be bankrupt. Many consumers in this country are likely, sooner or later, to lose a great deal of money. I fear that the Government will be blamed for sitting on their hands.
	The travel industry has welcomed a proposal to charge a levy of £1 on every ticket, thus building up a fund. Every consumer would then be covered. It is a simple solution that does not require all sorts of bonding or ATOLs. People would be covered whether they booked through an ABTA agency or online. Such consumer protection would give people great confidence. I urge the Minister to consider that because the travel industry is highly competitive and produces great value for money. In the past, when big firms have gone bust, all consumers have been protected. I fear that, although we still have the highly competitive industry, we also have difficult times because of higher fuel costs and the possibility of booking with airlines that fly under bankruptcy protection, and consumers could lose a lot of money.
	I appreciate that the Government's heart is in creating confident consumers, but I sometimes worry about their methods.

Robert Smith: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's careful analysis. I wonder whether a different Department will relate to the consumer on the matter that he is considering. Does he agree that the Government need to work across Departments to get their values across for dealing with consumers in all sectors?

Peter Bone: That is a valid point. The attraction of the proposal that I mentioned is that it is simple and straightforward.
	The Government often set out to do things but create so many regulations and complicate matters to such an extent that no one is genuinely protected and the industry is burdened with huge costs. In the case that I am considering, the industry would not be burdened with such costs and the consumer would be protected. That would be a good way forward in creating confident consumers in the travel industry.

Tony Lloyd: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for missing part of the opening speech.
	The debate is important and well informed, and there is a measure of agreement between all parties on some of the issues. I want to speak about the role of information in creating confident consumers and mechanisms for protecting them. I also want to speak about my trade union interests and those who supply the consumer with information. Consumers can be confident only if those who serve them are well trained and motivated.
	It is obvious that consumers need access to adequate information to be confident. In several services that we all use—for example, financial services— such information is not available. Most of us are used to the plethora of credit card letters on our doorstep every morning that offer us many different deals, structures and so on. That does not inform consumers, it simply bewilders them. One of the problems with financial services is that although we have a system of necessary regulation, we have no system of standardising the important parts of product information. I hope that my right hon. Friend, as Minister responsible, will consider the matter. The Treasury Committee recommended that in one of its most recent reports and I strongly endorse the recommendation.
	Let us consider food provision. We have perhaps become a more cranky and individualistic society in many ways. That is healthy, and what consumers should do when there is choice. We have taken huge steps forward on food labelling, some of which have been absolutely vital. Some of my children have specific allergies, and they need the protection that proper labelling can provide. One of my daughters has an allergy to corn, for example, and it is important for her to know when a particular food product contains corn. We have made advances in the provision of information on food products, but we have not yet gone far enough to give consumers the confidence to make these choices. There may be personal moral choices involved—for vegetarians, for example—or health choices.
	I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider one particular anomaly in the food production system. It is perhaps a difficult question, but it is worth examining. It involves the big gap that now exists between the producers of food sold through shops and those who produce for the restaurant or café trade. Food labelling in restaurants and cafés is still virtually non-existent, and we need to look at that issue if we are to offer adequate protection to the public.
	I agree with the points made by Opposition Members about what we should be looking for in our systems of regulation. It worries me that our big utilities are quite resistant to the consumer. I have experienced this myself; my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is also a north-western MP, will know—I say this perhaps a little unfairly—that it is not always a joy and a pleasure to try to get through the almost impenetrable wall in order to deal with United Utilities. That can be difficult even for a Member of Parliament, and it is often much more difficult for someone who genuinely has a leak in their water supply. The same arguments apply to the other utilities and energy industries.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members on the role of Energywatch. When we change the way in which we protect consumers, we must be careful not to throw away the advantage of the personal service that Energywatch has provided. We must recognise that we need that type of direct advocacy service when dealing with the large utilities. Perhaps we can manage to retain that, with Consumer Direct as well. It should not be impossible to ensure the continuation of the good work that Energywatch has done in the past.
	In some industries, regulation is not yet up to speed. Legal services have been mentioned in that regard. I have never been a great fan of the Law Society being the regulator of solicitors when complaints are made against them. We need to look at how we regulate in such services. Fortunately, most of us use them only rarely, but it can be very stressful for people when things do go wrong. I am sure that all Members of Parliament have had that experience.
	Many years ago, I had a fairly detailed knowledge of the building trade. I know that it still contains those who glory in the title of the cowboy builder and, alas, from time to time, my constituents come face to face with these people. It is difficult to determine how much and what kind of regulation we should have in such industries, and I am prepared to accept that sometimes the most appropriate regulation can be provided from within the industry. However, those services are not comprehensively regulated at the moment.
	There are interesting examples from other countries, in which membership of a trade association is mandatory, and that may or may not be a way forward here. I can see the value of such an arrangement, because trade associations can help to inspire confidence by providing properly structured trade agreements that offer the necessary protection. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned his own experience in that regard. Such an arrangement could serve as a model for the building trade.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned shop workers and Sunday trading. It is axiomatic that, if we are to create consumer confidence, our consumers need to be served by well-motivated, well-trained staff, be they shop workers or people who work in the hospitality industry. We still have some way to go in this country in relation to changing public attitudes towards people who serve in those roles. Unlike in the United States, their jobs are sometimes seen as menial. However, many of our constituents now look to those industries for employment, and we need to guarantee that they will have a system of career development through properly structured training schemes. Trade unions have a strong role to play in that form of training and education.
	In that industry, in which there is direct contact with consumers, not all of whom are confident and decent, violence against shop workers, for example, is a major issue. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been anxious to campaign on that recently. It is legitimate to promote responsible as well as confident consumers, and one of their responsibilities is not to assault physically or abuse verbally those engaged in providing such services.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right that where companies clearly abuse their position, they must be dealt with thoroughly and properly. Does he also accept, however, that one of the ways in which we can change behaviour among businesses is to use the carrot rather than the stick—to show that, for many businesses, customers value good service, which therefore provides a competitive advantage? That language might be more likely to encourage the vast majority of people involved in business and in providing services, public or private, to up their game.

Tony Lloyd: I probably did not explain my original point fully—I was talking about the customer, not the company. Assaults on shop workers are, I hope, rarely committed by their employer; it is not a good motivational technique in the modern world.  [Laughter.] We certainly know of cases in which shop workers have been assaulted by irate customers, and all of us have probably been irate customers from time to time, but that is not an excuse to subject those who provide such service to physical or verbal abuse.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a credible point; there is a strong role for companies in recognising that the provision of high-quality service, which requires highly motivated, well-trained staff, is also in the corporate interest. The best companies do exactly that, and we hope that that spreads throughout industry.
	Finally, I want to refer to the debate about the consultation on Sunday trading. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who is new to his job, must take a dispassionate, neutral attitude. However, I do not feel that I must be neutral or dispassionate. We altered the laws on Sunday trading only 12 years ago. At the time, a compromise was struck between those who argued from different perspectives, ranging from those who wanted no Sunday trading whatever to those who wanted total deregulation. That compromise recognised the different feelings in society. Of course, society is not static, so there is no inevitability that we will stay where we are for ever. Not enough has changed in those 12 years, however, to alter that fundamental compromise.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when we debated this issue 12 years ago we had a free vote? Does he wish, as I do, that when we eventually get round to voting on the issue again, whichever view we take, it will be a free vote, not one divided on party lines?

Tony Lloyd: Most of us are pragmatic and believe in a free vote when it guarantees that our side wins the vote. I may have to allow the argument to develop a little before I come down on one side or the other. This type of debate raises some genuine issues, and our approach should be to try to build the largest consensus. I think that we have a consensus at the moment. I have family members who work in the retail industry and who make the point to me that they quite like to work on Sundays. That is okay; it is what they choose. However, they like to work on the present Sunday, not a Sunday that might ultimately look like every other shopping day of the week. Keeping Sunday as a rather different day of the week is not necessarily to pander to ultra-Sabbatarians but to recognise that our way of life is best protected if our ordered week at least maintains something of the present character.
	I live in the middle of one of the most bustling cities in Britain, in the area where arguably such considerations apply least. Nevertheless, people still value the fact that one day of the week is a little different, and shop workers want to maintain the benefits of that.
	It could be said that the argument is not about the interests of consumers but about those of the very large stores, which still believe that they can gain a competitive advantage if they can open for longer on Sundays. That is questionable. It may not be in the interests of consumers if the result of longer opening hours for the large operators is smaller distributors being squeezed out of the industry. Interestingly, Tesco, which was one of the leading advocates of a change in the regulation of Sunday hours, has withdrawn from the deregulation coalition. I do not know why that is, but I am pleased that Tesco may have realised that it is not in its corporate interest to advocate a change that would be unpopular with the public.
	I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his new role. I can think of no one in Government who is quite as tenacious in supporting the interests of ordinary people against those who abuse their different forms of monopoly power. He has a great personal reputation. I am happy to say that publicly. We are not often given the chance to read our colleagues' obituaries while they are still with us. I am delighted that the Prime Minister did absolutely the right thing in this instance in moving my right hon. Friend to the DTI in his reshuffle.

Ian McCartney: Although only a few Members have been present to participate in my comeback, I can genuinely say that the debate has been interesting and has featured a good deal of serious comment, questioning and analysis. We all want to arrive at the same destination when it comes to some of the big issues and challenges, although there may be different options along the way. Difficult decisions may be necessary. Sometimes the easy decision is to opt out, while a decision that appears difficult at the outset may provide stability in the long term.
	I shall respond to as many points as I can, but I do not want to give an answer about which I am uncertain, and I may want to go away and ponder some of what has been said. I shall write to those to whom I do not respond today.
	Both the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) asked about access to cost-benefit analyses relating to Sunday shopping. I said that I would write to them, but I can also tell them that following my contribution at the stakeholders meeting yesterday the information has been placed on the DTI website. We would welcome comments. That is, however, separate from what I said earlier about preparation for potential further consultation.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has told us about the study, but has he any idea when the formal consultation might begin? I assume that it will have to begin reasonably soon if the timetable set by the Queen's Speech is to be adhered to.

Ian McCartney: That is a fair point. I am working on it as we speak. We have been consulting since January, and yesterday's stakeholders meeting represented almost the culmination of that first phase. I must now organise a further consultation, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, if it is to form any part of the legislative programme it will have to start fairly soon. Given that it is part of a continuing process of consultation, I expect that that will be the case. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the information as soon as I can. I shall ensure that he does not read it in the newspapers, and that I announce it in the House.
	I want to say a few words about the national debate on small shops. It grates a little when, just as that debate begins, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford announces that he wants to close the Small Business Service. Small businesses will be horrified to hear that. The Conservatives say one thing, but would do another—yet another example of their flip-flopping. This Government have shown their absolute commitment to the regeneration of town centres and marginal shopping areas, and to the renaissance of villages, small towns and estates, all of which were abandoned during 18 years of Tory government. A key aspect of that fundamental renaissance is bringing sustainable local businesses back to communities. This Government have pumped, and continue to pump, billions of pounds into the renaissance not just of our cities, but our out-of-town areas, villages and estates, all of which the previous Government abandoned. Small businesses have a big role to play in that renaissance.

Mark Prisk: rose—

Ian McCartney: I thought that that would wake the hon. Gentleman up.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for his stopping our drift into a consensual swamp. I enjoyed his pantomime attempt to suggest that we have a particular policy commitment regarding the SBS and the Department of Trade and Industry, but of course, and as he well knows, it is not true. Can he give a commitment to ensuring that the Government will provide time for a debate in this Chamber on the future of small shops?

Ian McCartney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Leader of the House, on whom the hon. Gentleman will have to use his persuasive talents. But whether or not that debate takes place, day in, day out, this Government will act to support small businesses, while you talk about it.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about the need for action and financial capability. I agree that it is important that consumers have the knowledge and understanding necessary to manage their money. The Financial Services Authority is taking the lead in work on financial capability. It has launched a range of initiatives, targeting employees and parents in particular, to provide people with simple tools to enable them to assess their financial position and borrowing. As part of this strategy, we will introduce financial education into the core curriculum from 2008.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I will meet representatives of the Association for Payment Clearing Services to discuss chip and PIN fraud. Credit card fraud is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose Ministers have regular contact with APACS. I can however assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet APACS representatives to discuss a range of issues, including this one. I will not be dishonest and say that such a meeting is already in my diary, but APACS is among a list of organisations whose representatives I will be meeting very soon. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me on this issue, I invite him to do so.
	It is important not to rush change, and we judged the proposed time scale for the introduction of consumer voice as sensible. We fully understand the importance to staff of stability, and we are closely consulting existing bodies, including staff representatives. This is in no way a cost-cutting exercise. The National Consumer Council is Government-funded and is at the core of the establishment of consumer voice. There is no intention to marginalise citizens advice bureaux. All such bodies are working closely together with the NCC.
	Consumer voice will be a statutory, independent body, which, I believe, is the commitment that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and others were looking for. We are considering our response to the consultation now, and we will announce the preferred option in July. Given that I have come late to this issue, I will read all the consultation documents, rather than simply looking at the recommendations made to me. I am very happy to consider the views and opinions expressed here today. If the hon. Gentleman has further opinions that he wants to express, I invite him to do so over the next few weeks. I give a genuine commitment to considering them in reaching my conclusions on the option to be announced in July.
	There is no better incentive for companies to resolve complaints themselves than having to pay ombudsman's costs. The new body will have specific responsibilities for vulnerable consumers in areas such as energy. The Office of Fair Trading has a key role to play in consumer education. Like Postwatch, Energywatch has a low public profile, and it cannot enforce compensation. I should point out that there are not 280,000 stranded customers; that figure includes all those who phoned to make a simple inquiry.
	Energywatch can act as an advocate, but it cannot enforce solutions. On issues such as disconnection, I agree that a faster track is needed. Energywatch is consulting Ofgem on a new billing ombudsman and speeding up the processes. Consumer voice is able to retain specialist panels in relation to energy and other issues, so it has the capacity to act independently and consider issues that arise. I have no doubt that Members of Parliament, consumer organisations and consumers themselves will try to influence the work load of the body.
	I noticed that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) made a new financial commitment for a new Department. However, he did not say what would happen to state aid, regional aid and the Small Business Service. He was careful, but I caught him out in one small aspect of that disastrous policy announcement. He has tried to cauterise the wounds, but as his proposal stands, all the other services of the DTI, including insolvency services, would be lost.

Robert Smith: rose—

Ian McCartney: He made his bed: will he lie in it?

Robert Smith: The Minister is exaggerating. If he looks at our manifesto from the last election, he will see that responsibility for energy would be put with environment and transport, which logically belong together. Responsibility for consumer affairs and the voice of business would go to the Treasury, and consumer protection would go to the new consumer Department. Regional aid would be devolved to the regions. Such a reorganisation is a matter for another debate, and I suggest that the Minister concentrate on the consumer affairs aspect.

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but he is drowning. Regional development agencies already have budgets, but what would happen to trade support services, insolvency and all the other responsibilities? The hon. Gentleman has a very bad policy, and that was noticed by very many consumers at the last general election.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several issues connected with the Information Commissioner's Office. The Government believe that it has a strong and supportive voice for telephone reference services. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, whose responsibility includes the Information Commissioner. I will ask my noble Friend to respond to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Post Office card account, which will be funded by the Government until 2010. That was always the plan, so the issue of the contract cannot be a surprise. However, it has not yet been settled what accounts will be available beyond 2010 and we are working closely with the Post Office to ensure that customers continue to have a choice of how to access their money at the post office. The Government have put in hundreds of millions of pounds to support the network, not only this year, but every year since we came to power.

Robert Smith: The Minister should ensure that his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions get things in the right order. It is premature to bully people away from the card account now—and into bank accounts with the prospect of £20 or £30 letters if they go overdrawn—when the future arrangements have not been decided.

Ian McCartney: The Government have been careful to work with the Post Office to provide improved services for pensioners, including the Pension Service and the card account. I feel a "Focus" leaflet coming on from the hon. Gentleman, but I hear what he says and I will put his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He can rest assured that this Government, more than any other, have supported the Post Office in all its aspects, including services to its most vulnerable customers, especially pensioners.
	The Government intend to introduce a legal services board, with specific responsibilities for competition and consumers. I will get an appropriate Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman about that with further details.
	On the building sector, the Government have supported a trust mark scheme to provide reassurances that the consumer is employing a good builder or property repairer.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) raised a number of interesting points. Like me, he was consensual one moment and partisan another. I will try to deal in equal measure with the issues that he raised, but I am not sure that I can manage that.
	There were some problems with the security industry registration. Let us be straight about this. The vast majority of the people not being registered could not be registered because of their criminal records. The point of introducing the registration scheme was to clean up the act and stop the industry being undermined by cowboys. This is a good industry. It is a good employer and an international industry. It provides global public and private services from the United Kingdom. It will continue to grow as we need the services of that industry in many areas. When I first raised the issue, the industry was worried, but it now has a protection that will help it expand and offer new services here, in Europe and beyond.
	I am proud that there are people in my community who are not registered. They should never have been in the industry in the first place. I am glad they are out of it and will not get back into it. Those who are in the industry can now join a union and get better pay and training. The training system is recognised. There is security in the industry. Those working in it have a skill and can be respected. Many of those who work in it, particularly door security people, are good, skilled and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, on occasions they face violence caused by drink or other factors. Because the industry has been cleaned up and because these people have skills, knowledge and a clean record, the industry as a whole will flourish. I am pleased about that, as I hope the hon. Gentleman is.

Peter Bone: I agree with the Minister. My point was that the regulation and the administration of the regulation were poor. Two of my constituents were just as the Minister described the right sort of people to be registered yet their forms were rejected because apparently they had not signed in the little box. In fact, they had. My point was that the resources were not there to implement the scheme properly.

Ian McCartney: The resources are there. Mistakes are made on occasion, and the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the travel industry, knows that. My God, many a holiday has been spoiled by a technical mistake. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have now registered and have a career. I am sure that they have. Over the years many of my constituents have just had to say goodbye to their holiday. We will come back to that because there is a good tale to tell about that industry too. Mistakes can and do happen, unfortunately. We have lots of regimes so that whenever there is a mistake, there is a remedy for it—not just a legal or financial remedy. The big issue is getting cultural change within business systems and organisations to prevent mistakes in the first place. Rather than a remedy afterwards, prevention is always the best policy. Where that breaks down because of human or business frailty, whether public or private business failure, there must be a remedy. In my speech today I have tried to set out a framework, showing the Government's ambition to make this a world-class regime. I hope that if we take step by step, that is exactly what will happen.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues. On the national health service I can well remember coming here and agitating on behalf of constituents who were waiting for heart operations or cataract operations, not for 18 months, but for two years. Across the country constituents were waiting for nine months, 12 months, 18 months or two years. There was chaos. An average wait in hospital during the winter months under the Conservatives could be 20, 21, 22 or 24 hours. Take your pick. There have been substantial changes in the NHS. It is a good news story. Thank goodness we won the last election. The hon. Gentleman supported a manifesto to take at least £1 billion a year out of the NHS and hand it as a subsidy to those who already had private health care.
	The Government have an absolute commitment, and I hope that the Conservative party will do a flip-flop and support it. We have promised, end to end, 18 weeks from seeing your GP to having a successful operation. We have made that promise, and it will happen. In the interim, across Britain, you now have a choice to go to another hospital if you cannot get the service at your local one. That includes if necessary attending a private hospital as an NHS patient, receiving treatment free at the point of use based on your medical need.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford may complain and grumble, but his hon. Friends raised the matter on the basis that NHS patients are consumers—

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job for the Labour party.

Ian McCartney: I am the consumer Minister, and thank goodness I am. Any job I do, I will make a success of it. I may be a small man, but I am a bigger man than the hon. Gentleman in all respects. He can take that how he likes.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) said that citizens advice bureaux did not receive any direct Government funding. That is not correct. Earlier I announced that we will be giving £45 million to fund debt advice services and £16 million will go to projects led directly by Citizens Advice. It will also receive a share of the £22 million going to projects run jointly with other advice agencies. So we are giving substantial funding.
	When I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office between 1999 and 2001 we gave substantial assistance—millions—to the CABs to invest in infrastructure so that they could interconnect on advice, services and training. They welcomed that. Local authorities also support the CABs. It was to the eternal shame of the Conservative Government that they substantially cut resources to the CABs. We have not only put them back but bettered them, and rightly so.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: Okay, you want some more.

Peter Bone: I appreciate that this is the consensual part of the Minister's speech. He would not want to misrepresent me. I said that no money went directly to the local CABs. Government money goes only to the national organisation, as I understand it.

Ian McCartney: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get himself off the hook he put himself on, but Citizens Advice is the citizens advice bureaux. It is a national network linked to the local one. It is one and the same organisation. It is true to say that there is some local independence of services, but it is a national organisation, and we are funding it. It welcomes that funding. It also receives funding from local authorities of all political persuasions—rightly so.
	In the past few years the CABs have run services directly for local authorities in relation to unclaimed benefit or employment issues. They provide better services that are value for money. I welcome that. We will continue to invest in the CABs and I, and the Government as a whole, will continue the partnership arrangement. I thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough for his comments. I am sure that the next time we have a date—I mean a debate. I said a date there, I do apologise. Och, you are over 21.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested a different way of funding risk in the package travel industry. I will be honest with you. This may be a good idea; it may be a barmy idea. When I have read  Hansard, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. In the meantime, I will give you some information that may or may not help you, but it is information that I want to put on the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have restrained myself for a long time with regard to the language used by the right hon. Member. When he reads  Hansard perhaps he will notice how many times he has incorrectly used the term "you".

Ian McCartney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time that I have been pulled up today. I explained earlier that I was a bit ring-rusty but that I hoped to have a bit more oil in my body by the end of the debate. I am nearly there, and I hope that you do not have to call me to order again—but you have to admit, it is good stuff. We have livened up what could have been a very dry debate and I hope that consumer magazines and newspapers will join the discussion. In that way, they will give information about the services that the Government are providing and the investment that we are putting in.
	I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not think that I was using being pulled up as a tactic in the debate. It is not the first time in my life that I have been asked to watch my language.

Mark Prisk: While the Minister is preparing his release for the trade press, I want to return to the important point about the difference between local citizens advice bureaux and the national organisation. The people who work in my local bureau, for instance, worry that money given by the Government is often held at the national association level. Some support is given with computer systems, for example, but my experience is that many local bureaux—which are funded by local authorities of all political persuasions—rarely see the benefit of that money, even though they bear the burden of the work. Does the Minister understand the distinction between the local bureaux and the national organisation? They are not the same thing.

Ian McCartney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I stick to what I said. All the new local bureau services being rolled out across the country are funded directly. The national organisation redistributes the resources that the Government make available, according to where the money is needed. No one would expect the Government to meddle in that. The partnership agreement requires that the national organisation distribute resources and provide services in a way that achieves value for money, but local funding is provided, by agreement, where that is deemed to be more suitable. We are committed to the massive new local investment that I described, and the organisation has made it clear that it is delighted at the huge increase in its capacity to deal with clients in local communities and to help vulnerable people who get into unnecessary debt.
	I know that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has to be able to tell the people in his local CAB that he has put their case. I accept that he makes a genuine point as, from time to time, I have to put the case for my local bureau with my local authority, but I think that I have responded to it. The Government are spending millions of pounds at both local and national level, and will continue to do so.
	I shall not read out the stuff on package travel for the hon. Member for Wellingborough, as I got diverted. However, I shall write to him with the details, which I shall place in the Library for other colleagues to see.
	Finally, I turn to my— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) makes a remark from a sedentary position, even though he has not contributed to the debate. I am trying to answer the questions that have come up. I know that he thinks that I have been here too long, but that was an unfair comment to make.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised a number of issues. I can assure him absolutely that I and the Government are absolutely neutral about how the review of Sunday trading should be conducted. If he reads  Hansard, he will see how complex the issues are. I have made it very clear that the Government want to be pro-business, small or large, and that we also want to be on the side of the people who work in those businesses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central asked about service workers. I used to be one; I know that service workers need to be properly respected by employers and customers alike, and I have supported the campaign to secure that respect. Millions of pounds are going into training these vulnerable workers through the trade union learning fund and other training services provided by the Government. The national minimum wage has been a big boost to service workers and will continue to help them.
	The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB, which was at the conference yesterday, are part and parcel of the core groups that we are consulting over the future of Sunday trading. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that USDAW held its first awards ceremony for service workers at the Radisson hotel in Manchester airport—I am always pleased to get in a plug for that airport—and I participated in the presentations there. It was a wonderful occasion, because many ordinary men and women do extraordinary things, but are never recognised. They are not film or sport stars, but each and every day they go to work with a smile on their face to provide a service. Sometimes they get abused, so thank goodness USDAW has the skill, the guile and the knowledge to recognise these extraordinary people for their huge contributions to the community and the British economy.
	The United Utilities company has been transformed over the last few years. I recognise what was said about some of the difficulties, but United Utilities has recently announced a multi-billion pound investment programme on sewer water flooding, for example. John Roberts, the chief executive who has just retired, transformed the company and I am assured that the new chief executive will further transform it, improve customer services and invest its capital and revenue resources to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central will recognise that.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford raised a number of questions and I assure him that he will receive replies. Any replies that are non-specific will be placed in the Library, so all hon. Members attending the debate will be able to assess whether the responses that I have given are accurate.
	After a very good debate, I want to stress the positive point that the Government intend to create a world-class regime by the date that I set out. It will benefit business and consumers and will make it clear to those who want to operate scams that we will deal with them. We will deal with those who want to carry out illegal money lending; we will deal with those who want to damage communities by their activities.
	I hope that, after our debate, a consensus will emerge on the road that we are taking. A country with appropriate regulation can ensure that business grows and that when it does, it is not hindered by cowboy organisations. If any cowboys are providing services in which consumers are badly treated or ill informed, the Government and the state will be on the side of consumers. That is my final point. However long I am in this job as Minister with responsibility for consumers, I am going to be on the consumers' side—not just on Monday or Tuesday, but seven days a week, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, including leap years.

Stephen McCabe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Rod Licences (Border Esk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]

David Mundell: I am delighted to have secured a debate on a subject about which I could speak at great length, although the House will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to do so. We have an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House a matter of great concern to my constituents in and around the Muckle Toon of Langholm and the Eskdale valley in Dumfriesshire.
	I raised the matter in my maiden speech and have previously raised it in the Scottish Parliament. It was also brought before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I have already met the Minister to discuss it, but it remains unresolved, so I welcome this opportunity to record the concerns of my constituents about the imposition of rod licences on the Scottish section of the Border Esk and to look for a way forward that commands the support both of my constituents and the Environment Agency.
	I am, however, already reassured about Parliament's role in this matter of great import, for no sooner had I secured today's debate than I had proactive contact from the Environment Agency for the first time. This morning, I was pleased to receive a fax from the Minister of a letter responding to a letter of 30 November 2005. Let no one say that debates in the House do not produce action.
	The matter has a long history and has been raised previously in the House, in particular by one of my predecessors, Lord Monro of Langholm. I pay tribute to him for his assiduous pursuit of the issue over the years, and I thank him for his help as I prepared for the debate. I first became involved as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland region. I was pleased to welcome members of the Esk and Liddle improvement association to the Scottish Parliament and to support their petition about the inequity of the Environment Agency's imposition of rod licences in 2003.
	The Scottish Executive's failure to get involved at that time was disappointing and lacking in backbone. Their failure to stand up for the interests of my constituents was a clear dereliction of the duties and obligations expected of them by people who supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Instead, the Executive simply kowtowed to the wishes of the Environment Agency and allowed it to go ahead with the rod licensing regime. If the Scottish Executive had spoken out against the introduction of rod licences on the Esk, I do not believe that the Environment Agency would still have gone ahead. That failure to act is consistent with many of the disappointments that people in my constituency have endured since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.
	I shall not dispute the background to the regulation of fisheries on the Border Esk; as the Environment Agency points out in its briefing for the debate, there has been regulation under English fisheries law since the 1860s. That has never been in dispute, although the agency's responsibility for the Border Esk—and, indeed, the responsibility of the Scottish authorities in various guises for the Tweed—is not based on any scientific fact, but merely reflects the historical need to come to a sensible resolution of cross-border issues. That is why I find it hard to accept the inflexible and unhelpful approach adopted in recent years by the Environment Agency, which, regardless of everything said by Baroness Young and people from the Environment Agency, is wholly contrary to the undertaking that Lord Sewel gave the former MP for Dumfries, Lord Monro, in a letter of 16 November 1998 after Lord Monro had raised the issue during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998.
	Lord Sewel clearly and unequivocally stated:
	"Because of local circumstances, the Environment Agency has never enforced its legal obligation in this area and as I indicated has no intention of changing that situation."
	No satisfactory explanation has ever been proffered, only some bureaucratic nonsense that all rivers must be treated the same and therefore that the Scottish section of the Border Esk must be brought into line with the rest of the rivers within the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

Martin Salter: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who clearly feel aggrieved, but is there not a quid pro quo? Although the Tweed flows in England and would be subject to Environment Agency rod licensing in normal circumstances, anglers are effectively exempt from paying for that licence, as a quid pro quo for the similar but converse situation in Scotland. Is that a balancing factor in the debate? I am genuinely interested, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can inform the House.

David Mundell: I can inform the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, as has been confirmed again today in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive have no plan at all to introduce rod licences in Scotland on any river for which they have responsibility, including the Tweed. Secondly, even though parts of the Tweed are physically in England, people fishing on those parts of the river are not required to pay for rod licences. The hon. Gentleman highlights the important point that an accommodation has been reached to avoid an incredibly complicated situation where different regimes might apply to either bank of a river. That accommodation has been put in statute in some ways, but it is mostly informal and there is no particular reason why it should not apply the other way around. It probably dates back to some border reiving activity, which is probably the ultimate historical origin of the choice of which authority covers which river.

Martin Salter: Particularly in salmon rivers in Scotland and elsewhere, it is common practice to wade across the river to fish a pool on the other side and back again, so the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties of enforcing a different administrative regime on either bank. Does he have a set of proposals to which my hon. Friend the Minister could respond that would not involve imposing a different administrative regime on either side of the river? I am sure that he would agree that anything other than that would be utterly unenforceable.

David Mundell: I hope to suggest a set of proposals that will commend themselves not just to the Minister but to the Environment Agency, as he tells me that he cannot tell the Environment Agency what to do. Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that has arisen recently: the Environment Agency's capacity to prosecute those who do not have rod licences through the Scottish courts, when its framework is geared for England and Wales. I will refer to that later. There have been some recent instances of prosecutions that have not been proceeded with, and although the Environment Agency claims that it has the right and ability to proceed with those prosecutions, the suggestion is that it has drawn back because the law may be over-complex. Again, that reinforces in my mind the need for a solution that can commend itself to all interested parties.
	I cannot accept, however, that is it equitable that a rod licensing regime should apply to the Esk when one is not applied to any other river in Scotland and, as I have just indicated, there is no plan to introduce any. None of the issues that have been raised by the Environment Agency justify the introduction of the licensing regime. Indeed, I find the issue of the costs and recovery of costs a particularly ironic one, since so much money must have been spent on dealing with the local dispute and the questions and correspondence from myself and others, that the sum raised through the licences cannot come even close to the cost of introducing them.
	My preference today would be for the Minister to announce that the Environment Agency has indicated that it has thought again and will not now continue to proceed with the rod licensing regime on the Esk.
	However, having received his letter and the Environment Agency briefing, and having pursued this matter over many years, I am realistic enough to know that that is not likely to happen. As was the case when I met the Minister, I am genuinely seeking a solution within the legislation that will allow the Environment Agency to meet what I consider to be its tick-box requirements, but which will also allow my constituents to fish on the River Esk without making the payments that others in Scotland do not have to make, without individual rod licence payments and without fear of prosecution.
	The solution that I suggest is one that I raised during my meeting with the Minister on 12 October. It has been the subject of discussions in the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. It would allow a form of general licence to be granted to the association. That provision is allowed under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That could allow any angler, including a child or pensioner, with a valid Esk and Liddle Improvement Association fishing permit to be covered by the general licence granted to the association. Of course, any angler who does not have a valid fishing permit from the association would not be covered by the exemption and would have to have a rod licence. I accept that if we are going to have rod licences, that would be the case.
	The Environment Agency briefing anticipates that request by pointing out that a general licence is not usually an alternative to a charging scheme, and fees are based on the number of people who would wish to fish under the licence. However, the Act also makes it clear, as a special provision, that the Environment Agency has the power to waive rod licence duty when it deems that there is a special case. What more special case could there be than a river that is physically in another jurisdiction and is the only one flowing outwith England and Wales within the remit of the Environment Agency? The Border Esk is like no other river under the control of the Environment Agency and so I believe that it falls within the definition of a special case in the legislation. That would allow the general licence to be granted without the payment of a fee.
	The Environment Agency is very keen on the letter of the law, and there can be no doubt that the legislation makes provision to enable it to waive the fee for a general rod licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. That would provide a solution that would meet the Environment Agency's stated requirement that the rod licensing regime should apply on the river, but it would also ensure that local anglers on the River Esk were treated the same as other anglers in Scotland in relation to the payment of rod licensing fees.
	I would have hoped that the Minister and the Environment Agency would welcome the association's efforts to encourage fishing among young people by a favourable licensing policy for that group, and for retired people too, to allow them to continue to participate in angling. Those initiatives are to be welcomed, not stifled by petty bureaucracy. Only last week, the Environment Agency said how important fishing was in diverting young people from antisocial behaviour. Apparently, the agency hopes to attract 200,000 extra young people to the sport by 2015. According to the statement to the media on the matter, all those extra 200,000 people are to be in England and Wales. If one reads Environment Agency documents, one realises that they generally make no recognition of the Border Esk. Clearly, that reflects the reality that the Border Esk is an anomaly in the Environment Agency. That is another reason why it is a special case and should be treated differently.
	One thing that must come out of the situation is a review of the way in which the Environment Agency has conducted itself. It has been a public relations disaster, which surely has been to no one's benefit. I was a little surprised that the Minister's letter of 3 November 2005 to Baroness Young stated:
	"We (and no doubt you) would regard approaches to the press on the lines of 'Mundell gets DEFRA/EA to back off over rod licence duties on the Border Esk' as entirely inappropriate".
	For me, the issue has been about getting not headlines, but a fair and equitable situation on the Esk. No one is more disappointed than I am that headlines have been easy to obtain. Adverse headlines have appeared about the Environment Agency, such as the latest in the  Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser of 27 April, which read: "Esk Fishing Licence Cases Are Dropped." I would prefer to move towards a solution to the problem.
	I am at an absolute loss to understand how the Environment Agency believes that it has benefited from not carrying out effective communication with stakeholders on the Scottish part of the Border Esk and why it thought that a brusque and unrelentingly strident line would achieve its goals. Even in the letter that was faxed to me from the Minister this morning, the Environment Agency says that it wants undertakings about the way in which it will be portrayed in any future discussions on the matter. I am sure that those undertakings can and will be given, but the requirement seems to strike at the heart of the issue. The agency has been more worried about the way in which it is perceived than about fishing on the Esk. At the same time, its stock, rather than the fishing stock, has plummeted. That is why I hope that the agency can now move forward without any baggage and discuss the proposal that I have put on the table this evening of a general licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association with no fee under the special case provision.
	Whether or not I get the response for which my constituents would hope, it has been extremely important to put the issue and their concerns once again on public record. I express my gratitude for the opportunity to do so, and await with interest what the Minister has to say.

Ben Bradshaw: May I start by apologising to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)? Despite my writing to him back at the end of November, following our October meeting, to promise that I would contact him again when I had heard from the Environment Agency, that did not happen until earlier today. Following our meeting, I did, as promised, write to Barbara Young, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, to ask her to consider the hon. Gentleman's request about the possibility of granting a general licence to fishers on the Scottish side of the Esk. She replied on 21 February with an offer from the Environment Agency to meet him and representatives of the Border Esk's fisheries interests to discuss the possibility of a general licence. I apologise that the letter got lost in the system and was not sent to the hon. Gentleman. He alluded in his speech to the fact that it came to my attention only when I met officials yesterday to discuss the debate, so I am extremely sorry.
	As the hon. Gentleman will have seen from the letter—I hope that he has had a little time to digest it—its offer is not without conditions. The agency requires an assurance that the fisheries interests will not try to portray its willingness to meet and discuss the matter as indicative of any change to its position that the Border Esk and its Scottish tributaries are managed under English law and thus subject to the agency's licensing regime. However, if any of the Esk fishery associations applied for a general licence, the agency would look into the possibility. Nevertheless, the fisheries associations must be sure that their members have exclusive rights, as the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 requires, and that a suitable administrative system is put in place so that the agency can be sure that people who fish are licensed and can collect the associated catch statistics to assist management. While a general licence could be the way forward, our position on the question of who should manage the Esk and the legal entitlement of the Environment Agency to collect licence fees remains the same.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in the Scottish Parliament in February 2005 as an MSP and was told that under section 25 of the 1975 Act the Environment Agency has no option but to regulate fishing on the Scottish side of the Border Esk with a rod licensing scheme. He has raised the issue on a number of occasions, but I am afraid that the answer remains the same. Now, however, he has the offer of talks with the Environment Agency. The Government, the Scottish Executive and the agency have adopted a consistent position. Under the provisions of the law, the agency is obliged to regulate fishing by rod and line licence in all the areas for which it has responsibility and to collect rod licence duties from people wishing to fish by rod and line in those areas.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) has learned in our debate, the whole Border Esk has been regulated for the purpose of fisheries under English law since the 1860s. Section 6(7) of the Environment Act 1995 requires the Environment Agency to carry out its functions in regard to fisheries on all of the river Esk in Scotland, including its banks and tributary streams, up to their sources. Although it may seem an anomaly that English law covers the Scottish part of a cross-border river, the Tweed—another cross-border river—falls under Scottish law, as my hon. Friend reminded the House. Tweed anglers on the English side may "benefit" from not having to pay for a rod licence, but funding is generated for the operation of the fisheries by the payment of permit fees to the owners, who pay a levy to the River Tweed council. It is worth bearing in mind, as my hon. Friend said, that rivers are managed according to their catchment areas, not according to administrative boundaries. The House will acknowledge that that makes obvious sense.
	As I have said, the Environment Agency is willing to discuss the arrangements that must be in place for a general licence to Scottish fishers on the Border Esk, and I urge the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and his constituents to take up that offer as soon as possible. As I have already cautioned, however, if the necessary conditions cannot be met, there is no alternative to the standard rod licence scheme. The resolution of outstanding issues is properly a matter for the agency and the fishery interests without, I hope, the need for further involvement from the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock.

CORRECTION

Official Report, 10 May 2006: In col. 430 for Mr. Grieve read Mr. Garnier.